Endoscopy

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy, adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3D computer-assisted analysis (WATS-3D) increases detection of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and dysplasia, new research showed. 

Compared with forceps biopsies (FB) alone, the addition of WATS-3D led to confirmation of BE in an additional one fifth of patients, roughly doubled dysplasia diagnoses, and influenced clinical management in the majority of patients. 

“The big take-home point here is that the use of WATS-3D brushing along with conventional biopsies increases the likelihood that intestinal metaplasia will be identified,” first author Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, with the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. 

“Almost 20% of patients who harbor BE were only identified by WATS-3D and might have otherwise gone undiagnosed had only forceps biopsies been performed,” Shaheen said. 

The study was published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

Beyond Traditional Biopsies

BE develops as a complication of chronic GERD and is the chief precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Early detection of BE and dysplasia is crucial to enable timely intervention. 

The current gold standard for BE screening involves upper endoscopy with FB following the Seattle protocol, which consists of four-quadrant biopsies from every 1-2 cm of areas of columnar-lined epithelium (CLE) to confirm the presence of intestinal metaplasia. However, this protocol is prone to sampling errors and high false-negative rates, leading to repeat endoscopy, the study team pointed out. 

WATS-3D (CDx Diagnostics) is a complementary technique designed to improve diagnostic yield by using brush biopsy to sample more tissue than routine biopsies.

WATS-3D has been shown to increase detection of dysplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance for BE, but less is known about the value of WATS-3D for BE screening in a community-based cohort of patients with GERD. 

To investigate, Shaheen and colleagues studied 23,933 consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective observational registry assessing the utility of WATS-3D in the screening of symptomatic GERD patients for BE. 

Patients had both WATS-3D and FB in the same endoscopic session. No patient had a history of BE, intestinal metaplasia or dysplasia in esophageal mucosa, or esophageal surgery, endoscopic ablation or endoscopic mucosal resection prior to enrollment. 

Overall, 6829 patients (29%) met endoscopic criteria for BE (≥ 1 cm esophageal CLE with accompanying biopsies showing intestinal metaplasia). 

Of these, 2878 (42%) had intestinal metaplasia identified by either FB or WATS-3D, but 19.3% had their BE diagnosis confirmed solely on the basis of WATS-3D findings. 

Among patients who fulfilled the endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and the absolute yield was 18.1%.

Of the 240 (1.0%) patients with dysplasia, 107 (45%) were found solely by WATS-3D.

 

‘Clinically Valuable Adjunct’

Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB results, clinical management changed in 90.7% of cases, mostly involving initiation or modification of surveillance and proton pump inhibitor therapy. 

These results suggest that WATS-3D is a “clinically valuable adjunct” to FB for the diagnosis of BE when used as a screening tool in symptomatic GERD patients and particularly in patients with endoscopic evidence of > 1 cm esophageal columnar-lined epithelium, the study team wrote. 

Adjunctive use of WATS-3D when BE is suspected “may save endoscopies and lead to quicker, more accurate diagnoses,” they added. 

The investigators said a limitation of the study is the lack of central pathology review, potentially leading to diagnostic variability. They also noted that over half of the detected dysplasia cases were crypt dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia, raising concerns about clinical significance. 

Reached for comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories, Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said he’s been using WATS for more than a decade as an adjunct to standard biopsy in patients undergoing screening and surveillance for BE and finds it clinically helpful in managing his patients.

This new study provides “further information that WATS added to biopsy that has been traditionally done with the Seattle protocol increases the yield of intestinal metaplasia and likely dysplasia in patients being screened for Barrett’s,” Katz, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

Funding for the study was provided by CDx Diagnostics. Shaheen and several coauthors disclosed relationships with the company. Katz disclosed relationships (consultant/advisor) for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

The United States multi-society task force on colorectal cancer (CRC) has updated its 2014 guidance for optimizing the adequacy of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The latest consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of verbal and written patient education, refine diet restrictions, update optimal purgative regimens, and advise tracking bowel prep adequacy rates at both the individual endoscopist and unit levels.

“Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States, and colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating the colon, including assessing causes of colon-related signs or symptoms and the detection of precancerous lesions. It is well recognized that the adequacy of bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy performance,” the task force wrote.

 

Choice of Prep, Dosing and Timing, and Dietary Restrictions 

When choosing bowel preparation regimens, the task force recommends considering the individual’s medical history, medications, and, when available, the adequacy of bowel preparation reported from prior colonoscopies. Other considerations include patient preference, associated additional costs to the patient, and ease in obtaining and consuming any purgatives or adjuncts.

In terms of timing and dose, the task force now “suggests that lower-volume bowel preparation regimens, such as those that rely on only 2 liters of fluid compared to the traditional 4L, are acceptable options for individuals considered unlikely to have an inadequate bowel preparation. This assumes that the purgative is taken in a split-dose fashion (half the evening prior to colonoscopy and half the morning of the colonoscopy),” co–lead author Brian C. Jacobson, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

The task force also states that a same-day bowel preparation regimen for afternoon, but not morning, colonoscopy is a “reasonable alternative to the now-common split-dose regimen,” Jacobson said.

The group did not find one bowel preparation purgative to be better than others, although table 7 in the document details characteristics of commonly used prep regimens including their side effects and contraindications.

Recommendations regarding dietary modifications depend upon the patient’s risk for inadequate bowel prep. For patients at low risk for inadequate bowel prep, the task force recommends limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. Table 5 in the document provides a list of low-residue foods and sample meals.

The task force also suggests the adjunctive use of oral simethicone (≥ 320 mg) to bowel prep as a way to potentially improve visualization, although they acknowledge that further research is needed.

How might these updated consensus recommendations change current clinical practice? 

Jacobson said: “Some physicians may try to identify individuals who will do just as well with a more patient-friendly, easily tolerated bowel preparation regimen, including less stringent dietary restrictions leading up to colonoscopy.” 

He noted that the task force prefers the term “guidance” to “guidelines.”

 

New Quality Benchmark 

The task force recommends documenting bowel prep quality in the endoscopy report after all washing and suctioning have been completed using reliably understood descriptors that communicate the adequacy of the preparation.

They recommend the term “adequate bowel preparation” be used to indicate that standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy.

Additionally, the task force recommends that endoscopy units and individual endoscopists track and aim for ≥ 90% adequacy rates in bowel preparation — up from the 85% benchmark contained in the prior recommendations.

Jacobson told this news organization it’s “currently unknown” how many individual endoscopists and endoscopy units track and meet the 90% benchmark at present.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who wasn’t on the task force, said endoscopy units and providers “need to be accountable and should be tracking this quality metric.”

Johnson noted that bowel prep inadequacy has “intrinsic costs,” impacting lesion detection, CRC incidence, and patient outcomes. Inadequate prep leads to “increased risk for morbidity, mortality, longer appointment and wait times for rescheduling, and negative connotations that may deter patients from returning.”

 

Brian Sullivan, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, who wasn’t on the task force, said the recommendation to target a 90% or higher bowel preparation adequacy rate is “appreciated.”

“This benchmark encourages practices to standardize measurement, tracking, and reporting of preparation quality at both the individual and unit levels. Specifically, it should motivate providers to critically evaluate their interpretation of preparation quality and ensure adequate cleansing before making determinations,” Sullivan said in an interview.

“At the unit level, this metric can identify whether there are opportunities for quality improvement, such as by implementing evidence-based initiatives (provided in the guidance) to enhance outpatient preparation processes,” Sullivan noted.

The task force emphasized that the majority of consensus recommendations focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel prep. Patients at high risk for inadequate bowel prep (eg, diabetes, constipation, opioid use) should receive tailored instructions, including a more extended dietary prep and high-volume purgatives.

 

‘Timely and Important’ Updates

Sullivan said the updated consensus recommendations on optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy are both “timely and important.” 

“Clear guidance facilitates dissemination and adoption, promoting flexible yet evidence-based approaches that enhance patient and provider satisfaction while potentially improving CRC prevention outcomes. For instance, surveys reveal that some practices still do not utilize split-dose bowel preparation, which is proven to improve preparation quality, particularly for the right-side of the colon. This gap underscores the need for standardized guidance to ensure high-quality colonoscopy and effective CRC screening,” Sullivan said.

He also noted that the inclusion of lower-volume bowel prep regimens and less intensive dietary modifications for selected patients is a “welcome update.”

“These options can improve patient adherence and satisfaction, which are critical not only for the quality of the index exam but also for ensuring patients return for future screenings, thereby supporting long-term CRC prevention efforts,” Sullivan said.

The task force includes representatives from the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The consensus document was published online in the three societies’ respective scientific journals — Gastroenterology, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Gastrointestinal Endsocopy.

This research had no financial support. Jacobson is a consultant for Curis and Guardant Health. Sullivan had no disclosures. Johnson is an adviser to ISOThrive and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with retained gastric contents and aborted procedures among patients undergoing upper endoscopy, according to a meta-analysis of more than 80,000 patients.

Safety profiles, however, were comparable across groups, suggesting that prolonged fasting may be a sufficient management strategy, instead of withholding GLP-1RAs, lead author Antonio Facciorusso, MD, PhD, of the University of Foggia, Italy, and colleagues reported.

“The impact of GLP-1RAs on slowing gastric motility has raised concerns in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, particularly upper endoscopies,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “This is due to the perceived risk of aspiration of retained gastric contents in sedated patients and the decreased visibility of the gastric mucosa, which can reduce the diagnostic yield of the examination.”

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends withholding GLP-1RAs before procedures or surgery, whereas AGA suggests an individualized approach, citing limited supporting data. 

A previous meta-analysis reported that GLP-1RAs mildly delayed gastric emptying, but clinical relevance remained unclear. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify this uncertainty by analyzing 13 retrospective studies that involved 84,065 patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Outcomes were compared among GLP-1RA users vs non-users, including rates of retained gastric contents, aborted procedures, and adverse events. 

Patients on GLP-1RAs had significantly higher rates of retained gastric contents than non-users (odds ratio [OR], 5.56), a finding that held steady (OR, 4.20) after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, and other therapies. 

GLP-1RAs were also associated with an increased likelihood of aborted procedures (OR, 5.13; 1% vs. 0.3%) and a higher need for repeat endoscopies (OR, 2.19; 1% vs 2%); however, Facciorusso and colleagues noted that these events, in absolute terms, were relatively uncommon.

“The rate of aborted and repeat procedures in the included studies was low,” the investigators wrote. “This meant that only for every 110 patients undergoing upper endoscopy while in GLP-1RA therapy would we observe an aborted procedure and only for every 120 patients would we need to repeat the procedure.”

The overall safety profile of GLP-1RAs in the context of upper endoscopy remained largely reassuring, they added. Specifically, rates of bronchial aspiration were not significantly different between users and non-users. What’s more, no single study reported a statistically significant increase in major complications, including pulmonary adverse events, among GLP-1RA users. 

According to Facciorusso and colleagues, these findings suggest that retained gastric contents do not appear to substantially heighten the risk of serious harm, though further prospective studies are needed.

“Our comprehensive analysis indicates that, while the use of GLP-1RA results in higher rates of [retained gastric contents], the actual clinical impact appears to be limited,” they wrote. “Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support the routine discontinuation of the drug before upper endoscopy procedures.”

Instead, they supported the AGA task force’s recommendation for an individualized approach, and not withholding GLP-1RAs unnecessarily, calling this “the best compromise.”

“Prolonging the duration of fasting for solids could represent the optimal approach in these patients, although this strategy requires further evaluation,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

BERLIN — A multicenter study comparing three endoscopic imaging techniques used to monitor patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for neoplasia found that virtual chromoendoscopy has the highest detection rate.

The research, presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress, also found “significant variability in IBD surveillance practice in the real world,” said study presenter Chandni Radia, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, England.

Although dye chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies traditionally was considered the gold standard for neoplasia detection in patients with IBD, randomized trials have challenged its superiority over virtual chromoendoscopy and high-definition white-light endoscopy, the researchers noted. They hypothesized that the modality used would not affect the neoplasia detection rate.

To investigate, they conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of adults with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) who underwent routine clinical IBD surveillance at one of five centers in the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2023. They examined data from the endoscopy reporting software, alongside endoscopy reports, endoscopy images, and electronic patient records.

In all, 2673 colonoscopies performed on 2050 patients were included, with 1032 procedures using dye chromoendoscopy, 366 using virtual chromoendoscopy, and 1275 using high-definition white-light endoscopy.

The overall neoplasia detection rate was 11.4%, “which is very similar to what has previously been seen in the literature,” Radia said.

However, the detection rate varied significantly by procedure: 19% in virtual chromoendoscopy, 12% in dye chromoendoscopy, and 9% in white-light endoscopy (P < .001). After accounting for a range of potential confounding factors, virtual chromoendoscopy still had the highest neoplasia detection rate.

Dye chromoendoscopy had a “prolonged withdrawal time and increased need for targeted biopsies without improving their neoplasia yield, which goes against our aspirations of sustainability,” Radia noted.

“It was interesting to see that the procedures with the most dye chromoendoscopy seem to have the longest withdrawal time, and those with the most white-light endoscopy seem to have the shortest,” she said. The difference remained significant even after controlling for procedures with polypectomy, “which has a significantly longer withdrawal time compared to procedures without.” 

 

Results Varied by Center

There was wide variability between the five centers on several findings. The neoplasia detection rate ranged from 7.4% to 17.2%, depending on the center.

The surveillance method also varied. One center, for example, used white-light endoscopy in 82% of cases and dye chromoendoscopy in the other 18%. At another center, 61% of patients had dye chromoendoscopy, 36% white-light endoscopy, and 3% virtual chromoendoscopy. In a third center, 48% had virtual chromoendoscopy, 46% white-light endoscopy, and 6% dye chromoendoscopy.

The centers had varying proportions of patients with each of the three conditions, with ulcerative colitis ranging from 46% to 63%, Crohn’s disease from 9% to 39%, and PSC from 14% to 45%.

The heterogeneity of patients between the modality groups is one of the study’s limitations, Radia said. Others are the shorter withdrawal time with white-light endoscopy and the lack of standardized withdrawal time for the procedures.

The research team’s analyses are ongoing and include examination of the types of neoplasia detected, as well as accounting for endoscopist experience and patients who underwent two procedures with different modalities, Radia said.

 

Reflection of ‘Real-Life Practice’

Because the study was a retrospective analysis, it contains inherent biases and other issues, Raf Bisschops, MD, PhD, director of endoscopy, University of Leuven, Belgium, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

However, it was a “thorough analysis” that reflects “real-life practice,” he said. As such, it lends “huge support” to virtual chromoendoscopy, which “actually goes against the new [British Society of Gastroenterology] guideline that is about to come out.” The society plans to recommend in favor of dye chromoendoscopy, but the new study findings could be still incorporated into the upcoming guidelines so as to also endorse virtual chromoendoscopy.

Whatever the modality used, clinicians need to make sure they “pay attention” when looking for small neoplastic lesions, and “anything that can help you do that, that draws your attention to cell lesions ... can be helpful,” Bisschops said.

Performing targeted biopsies, as with dye chromoendoscopy, can be problematic, as “people don’t pay attention anymore to those cell lesions; they just focus on taking the 32 biopsies, which is a huge endeavor and it’s a pain to do it,” he added.

Radia has received a Research Training Fellowship Award from the UK patient organization PSC Support. No other funding was declared. Radia declared relationships with Abbvie, Galapogos, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A multicenter study comparing three endoscopic imaging techniques used to monitor patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for neoplasia found that virtual chromoendoscopy has the highest detection rate.

The research, presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress, also found “significant variability in IBD surveillance practice in the real world,” said study presenter Chandni Radia, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, England.

Although dye chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies traditionally was considered the gold standard for neoplasia detection in patients with IBD, randomized trials have challenged its superiority over virtual chromoendoscopy and high-definition white-light endoscopy, the researchers noted. They hypothesized that the modality used would not affect the neoplasia detection rate.

To investigate, they conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of adults with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) who underwent routine clinical IBD surveillance at one of five centers in the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2023. They examined data from the endoscopy reporting software, alongside endoscopy reports, endoscopy images, and electronic patient records.

In all, 2673 colonoscopies performed on 2050 patients were included, with 1032 procedures using dye chromoendoscopy, 366 using virtual chromoendoscopy, and 1275 using high-definition white-light endoscopy.

The overall neoplasia detection rate was 11.4%, “which is very similar to what has previously been seen in the literature,” Radia said.

However, the detection rate varied significantly by procedure: 19% in virtual chromoendoscopy, 12% in dye chromoendoscopy, and 9% in white-light endoscopy (P < .001). After accounting for a range of potential confounding factors, virtual chromoendoscopy still had the highest neoplasia detection rate.

Dye chromoendoscopy had a “prolonged withdrawal time and increased need for targeted biopsies without improving their neoplasia yield, which goes against our aspirations of sustainability,” Radia noted.

“It was interesting to see that the procedures with the most dye chromoendoscopy seem to have the longest withdrawal time, and those with the most white-light endoscopy seem to have the shortest,” she said. The difference remained significant even after controlling for procedures with polypectomy, “which has a significantly longer withdrawal time compared to procedures without.” 

 

Results Varied by Center

There was wide variability between the five centers on several findings. The neoplasia detection rate ranged from 7.4% to 17.2%, depending on the center.

The surveillance method also varied. One center, for example, used white-light endoscopy in 82% of cases and dye chromoendoscopy in the other 18%. At another center, 61% of patients had dye chromoendoscopy, 36% white-light endoscopy, and 3% virtual chromoendoscopy. In a third center, 48% had virtual chromoendoscopy, 46% white-light endoscopy, and 6% dye chromoendoscopy.

The centers had varying proportions of patients with each of the three conditions, with ulcerative colitis ranging from 46% to 63%, Crohn’s disease from 9% to 39%, and PSC from 14% to 45%.

The heterogeneity of patients between the modality groups is one of the study’s limitations, Radia said. Others are the shorter withdrawal time with white-light endoscopy and the lack of standardized withdrawal time for the procedures.

The research team’s analyses are ongoing and include examination of the types of neoplasia detected, as well as accounting for endoscopist experience and patients who underwent two procedures with different modalities, Radia said.

 

Reflection of ‘Real-Life Practice’

Because the study was a retrospective analysis, it contains inherent biases and other issues, Raf Bisschops, MD, PhD, director of endoscopy, University of Leuven, Belgium, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

However, it was a “thorough analysis” that reflects “real-life practice,” he said. As such, it lends “huge support” to virtual chromoendoscopy, which “actually goes against the new [British Society of Gastroenterology] guideline that is about to come out.” The society plans to recommend in favor of dye chromoendoscopy, but the new study findings could be still incorporated into the upcoming guidelines so as to also endorse virtual chromoendoscopy.

Whatever the modality used, clinicians need to make sure they “pay attention” when looking for small neoplastic lesions, and “anything that can help you do that, that draws your attention to cell lesions ... can be helpful,” Bisschops said.

Performing targeted biopsies, as with dye chromoendoscopy, can be problematic, as “people don’t pay attention anymore to those cell lesions; they just focus on taking the 32 biopsies, which is a huge endeavor and it’s a pain to do it,” he added.

Radia has received a Research Training Fellowship Award from the UK patient organization PSC Support. No other funding was declared. Radia declared relationships with Abbvie, Galapogos, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A multicenter study comparing three endoscopic imaging techniques used to monitor patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for neoplasia found that virtual chromoendoscopy has the highest detection rate.

The research, presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress, also found “significant variability in IBD surveillance practice in the real world,” said study presenter Chandni Radia, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, England.

Although dye chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies traditionally was considered the gold standard for neoplasia detection in patients with IBD, randomized trials have challenged its superiority over virtual chromoendoscopy and high-definition white-light endoscopy, the researchers noted. They hypothesized that the modality used would not affect the neoplasia detection rate.

To investigate, they conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of adults with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) who underwent routine clinical IBD surveillance at one of five centers in the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2023. They examined data from the endoscopy reporting software, alongside endoscopy reports, endoscopy images, and electronic patient records.

In all, 2673 colonoscopies performed on 2050 patients were included, with 1032 procedures using dye chromoendoscopy, 366 using virtual chromoendoscopy, and 1275 using high-definition white-light endoscopy.

The overall neoplasia detection rate was 11.4%, “which is very similar to what has previously been seen in the literature,” Radia said.

However, the detection rate varied significantly by procedure: 19% in virtual chromoendoscopy, 12% in dye chromoendoscopy, and 9% in white-light endoscopy (P < .001). After accounting for a range of potential confounding factors, virtual chromoendoscopy still had the highest neoplasia detection rate.

Dye chromoendoscopy had a “prolonged withdrawal time and increased need for targeted biopsies without improving their neoplasia yield, which goes against our aspirations of sustainability,” Radia noted.

“It was interesting to see that the procedures with the most dye chromoendoscopy seem to have the longest withdrawal time, and those with the most white-light endoscopy seem to have the shortest,” she said. The difference remained significant even after controlling for procedures with polypectomy, “which has a significantly longer withdrawal time compared to procedures without.” 

 

Results Varied by Center

There was wide variability between the five centers on several findings. The neoplasia detection rate ranged from 7.4% to 17.2%, depending on the center.

The surveillance method also varied. One center, for example, used white-light endoscopy in 82% of cases and dye chromoendoscopy in the other 18%. At another center, 61% of patients had dye chromoendoscopy, 36% white-light endoscopy, and 3% virtual chromoendoscopy. In a third center, 48% had virtual chromoendoscopy, 46% white-light endoscopy, and 6% dye chromoendoscopy.

The centers had varying proportions of patients with each of the three conditions, with ulcerative colitis ranging from 46% to 63%, Crohn’s disease from 9% to 39%, and PSC from 14% to 45%.

The heterogeneity of patients between the modality groups is one of the study’s limitations, Radia said. Others are the shorter withdrawal time with white-light endoscopy and the lack of standardized withdrawal time for the procedures.

The research team’s analyses are ongoing and include examination of the types of neoplasia detected, as well as accounting for endoscopist experience and patients who underwent two procedures with different modalities, Radia said.

 

Reflection of ‘Real-Life Practice’

Because the study was a retrospective analysis, it contains inherent biases and other issues, Raf Bisschops, MD, PhD, director of endoscopy, University of Leuven, Belgium, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

However, it was a “thorough analysis” that reflects “real-life practice,” he said. As such, it lends “huge support” to virtual chromoendoscopy, which “actually goes against the new [British Society of Gastroenterology] guideline that is about to come out.” The society plans to recommend in favor of dye chromoendoscopy, but the new study findings could be still incorporated into the upcoming guidelines so as to also endorse virtual chromoendoscopy.

Whatever the modality used, clinicians need to make sure they “pay attention” when looking for small neoplastic lesions, and “anything that can help you do that, that draws your attention to cell lesions ... can be helpful,” Bisschops said.

Performing targeted biopsies, as with dye chromoendoscopy, can be problematic, as “people don’t pay attention anymore to those cell lesions; they just focus on taking the 32 biopsies, which is a huge endeavor and it’s a pain to do it,” he added.

Radia has received a Research Training Fellowship Award from the UK patient organization PSC Support. No other funding was declared. Radia declared relationships with Abbvie, Galapogos, and Dr. Falk Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 250,000 US hospitalized patients a year require enteral support using an artificial pathway into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver nutrition or medication. In light of this, AGA has issued a clinical practice update to improve the practice of endoscopic enteral access.

Covering indications, placement techniques, and management, the comprehensive document is a response to the increasing use of enteral access devices in chronic GI conditions. The update, published in Gastroenterology, addresses patient factors complicating placement decision-making such as thrombocytopenia, use of dual antiplatelet therapy, or performance of percutaneous access in the setting of cirrhosis.

 

“We provide clinical recommendations in these various scenarios understanding that the final decision-making is in the hands of the provider and care team,” said first author Dejan Micic, MD, a gastroenterologist and associate professor at University of Chicago Medical Center in Illinois at the time of the update (since relocated to Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago). “We hope this can serve a day-to-day purpose for clinical gastroenterologists and can be referenced as they encounter individuals with or needing an enteral access device.”

Traditionally, enteral access was reserved for patients with severe malnutrition or those unable to maintain oral intake. Recent recommendations emphasize early nutritional intervention including prehabilitation before major surgery, adjunctive therapy for oncology patients, and in specific inflammatory conditions such as Crohn’s disease. “These shifts recognize the role of enteral nutrition not only in preventing malnutrition but also as a therapeutic strategy,” Micic said in an interview.

There is, however, variability in the use of devices including the selection of appropriate units, technical aspects of placement, and subsequent management. “Such variability can lead to complications, suboptimal patient outcomes, and inefficiencies in care delivery,” Micic said.

He added that enteral access has been historically underemphasized in GI endoscopic training. “While procedural skill in placing devices such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or PEG, tubes is often taught, a comprehensive understanding of the broader clinical context — such as proper patient selection, prevention of complications, and postplacement care — is not always thoroughly covered.”

The current update aims to bridge knowledge gaps with evidence-based-guidance. “It also underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration with dietitians, nurses, and care givers to achieve the best outcomes for patients,” Micic said.

 

Commenting on the update but not involved with creating it, Shirley C. Paski, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, called it timely, adding: “As GI training is becoming more subspecialized and interventional radiology has been able to provide enteral access, gastroenterology training in enteral access has declined to where some fellows are graduating with limited enteral access experience.”

Yet malnutrition remains a common consequence when GI disease is severe, chronic, or refractory to treatment, or in the setting of postsurgical anatomy, she added. “Enteral nutrition is increasingly being considered a therapeutic or adjunct treatment in some cases of Crohn’s disease or small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Gastroenterologists need the endoscopic skill to secure enteral access tubes, particularly in more challenging anatomy.”

 

Also commenting on the document but not involved in it, Steven Shamah, MD, director of Endoscopy at Northwell Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said: “This should serve as a concise review for any general hospitalist or gastroenterologist to understand what we have and when we should offer the proper feeding tube options.” He stressed, however, that all gastroenterologists should be trained in the placing of all of tube options.

“The axiom ‘If the gut works, we should use it’ is something that I was taught when I was a medical student and it still holds true,” Shamah continued. “There’s been a jump in interventional procedures to assure continuity of the GI tract even in progressive malignancy. So there’s a rise in moving away from intravenous nutrition and a rise in tube-delivered enteral nutrition.” Options for reducing reflux and aspiration will likely take on more importance, he said.

 

Tubing Options

According to Micic and colleagues, recent data suggest a favorable safety profile of enteral feeding tubes placed endoscopically compared with surgical or radiologic placement. The illustrated AGA document outlines such approaches as synthetic flexible tubes placed into the stomach or small bowel via the oral (orogastric and oroenteral) or nasal routes (nasogastric [NG] and nasojejunal [NJ]) and percutaneous tubes accessing the stomach. The choice of tube, access point, delivery site, and feeding method varies with indication, expected duration of use, and patient anatomy, the authors stressed.

The update notes that NG and NJ tubes can be used immediately after confirmation of placement, most often with abdominal radiography. PEG tubes can be used immediately for medications and after 4 hours for tube feedings. A multidisciplinary team approach after placement provides improved patient care. “Dietitians assist with formula choice, volume, free water needs, and delivery method, and nurses and advanced practice clinicians assist with tube site assessment and troubleshooting,” the authors wrote.

Complications can occur but should be infrequent, Micic said. “Frankly, most complications can be predicted based on the duration of use and prevented with appropriate monitoring.” Common complications include tube dislodgement, clogging, site infections, buried bumper syndrome, and aspiration. “Minimizing these risks requires a thorough understanding of patient-specific factors, careful technique during placement, and ongoing monitoring after the device is in use,” he added.

Paski said the update aligns with established guidelines for enteral access but also offers suggestions to mitigate the risk of tube placement in patients in whom placement has traditionally been more challenging. “This is a helpful addition to the literature because if enteral access cannot be obtained in a patient unable to meet their needs orally, total paternal nutrition is the next and much more invasive step for nutrition support.”

She called the practice update a concise, comprehensive reference for trainees and experienced gastroenterologists to optimize placement conditions and reduce complication risk, noting that training in nutrition is suboptimal in many GI fellowships.

Becoming familiar with common and advanced enteral access techniques is within the armamentarium of all practicing gastroenterologists, the authors stated. Because malnutrition affects nearly all GI disorders, “understanding common routes of enteral access and the basic principles of nutrition support promotes the initiation of optimal enteral nutrition, mitigating the impact of malnutrition, and improving prognosis for patients at nutritional risk,” they wrote.

Micic served on the advisory board for Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and is on the speaker’s bureau for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor served as a consultant for Merit Medical, Circa Scientific, and Aspero Medical. Paski and Shamah had disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 250,000 US hospitalized patients a year require enteral support using an artificial pathway into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver nutrition or medication. In light of this, AGA has issued a clinical practice update to improve the practice of endoscopic enteral access.

Covering indications, placement techniques, and management, the comprehensive document is a response to the increasing use of enteral access devices in chronic GI conditions. The update, published in Gastroenterology, addresses patient factors complicating placement decision-making such as thrombocytopenia, use of dual antiplatelet therapy, or performance of percutaneous access in the setting of cirrhosis.

 

“We provide clinical recommendations in these various scenarios understanding that the final decision-making is in the hands of the provider and care team,” said first author Dejan Micic, MD, a gastroenterologist and associate professor at University of Chicago Medical Center in Illinois at the time of the update (since relocated to Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago). “We hope this can serve a day-to-day purpose for clinical gastroenterologists and can be referenced as they encounter individuals with or needing an enteral access device.”

Traditionally, enteral access was reserved for patients with severe malnutrition or those unable to maintain oral intake. Recent recommendations emphasize early nutritional intervention including prehabilitation before major surgery, adjunctive therapy for oncology patients, and in specific inflammatory conditions such as Crohn’s disease. “These shifts recognize the role of enteral nutrition not only in preventing malnutrition but also as a therapeutic strategy,” Micic said in an interview.

There is, however, variability in the use of devices including the selection of appropriate units, technical aspects of placement, and subsequent management. “Such variability can lead to complications, suboptimal patient outcomes, and inefficiencies in care delivery,” Micic said.

He added that enteral access has been historically underemphasized in GI endoscopic training. “While procedural skill in placing devices such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or PEG, tubes is often taught, a comprehensive understanding of the broader clinical context — such as proper patient selection, prevention of complications, and postplacement care — is not always thoroughly covered.”

The current update aims to bridge knowledge gaps with evidence-based-guidance. “It also underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration with dietitians, nurses, and care givers to achieve the best outcomes for patients,” Micic said.

 

Commenting on the update but not involved with creating it, Shirley C. Paski, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, called it timely, adding: “As GI training is becoming more subspecialized and interventional radiology has been able to provide enteral access, gastroenterology training in enteral access has declined to where some fellows are graduating with limited enteral access experience.”

Yet malnutrition remains a common consequence when GI disease is severe, chronic, or refractory to treatment, or in the setting of postsurgical anatomy, she added. “Enteral nutrition is increasingly being considered a therapeutic or adjunct treatment in some cases of Crohn’s disease or small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Gastroenterologists need the endoscopic skill to secure enteral access tubes, particularly in more challenging anatomy.”

 

Also commenting on the document but not involved in it, Steven Shamah, MD, director of Endoscopy at Northwell Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said: “This should serve as a concise review for any general hospitalist or gastroenterologist to understand what we have and when we should offer the proper feeding tube options.” He stressed, however, that all gastroenterologists should be trained in the placing of all of tube options.

“The axiom ‘If the gut works, we should use it’ is something that I was taught when I was a medical student and it still holds true,” Shamah continued. “There’s been a jump in interventional procedures to assure continuity of the GI tract even in progressive malignancy. So there’s a rise in moving away from intravenous nutrition and a rise in tube-delivered enteral nutrition.” Options for reducing reflux and aspiration will likely take on more importance, he said.

 

Tubing Options

According to Micic and colleagues, recent data suggest a favorable safety profile of enteral feeding tubes placed endoscopically compared with surgical or radiologic placement. The illustrated AGA document outlines such approaches as synthetic flexible tubes placed into the stomach or small bowel via the oral (orogastric and oroenteral) or nasal routes (nasogastric [NG] and nasojejunal [NJ]) and percutaneous tubes accessing the stomach. The choice of tube, access point, delivery site, and feeding method varies with indication, expected duration of use, and patient anatomy, the authors stressed.

The update notes that NG and NJ tubes can be used immediately after confirmation of placement, most often with abdominal radiography. PEG tubes can be used immediately for medications and after 4 hours for tube feedings. A multidisciplinary team approach after placement provides improved patient care. “Dietitians assist with formula choice, volume, free water needs, and delivery method, and nurses and advanced practice clinicians assist with tube site assessment and troubleshooting,” the authors wrote.

Complications can occur but should be infrequent, Micic said. “Frankly, most complications can be predicted based on the duration of use and prevented with appropriate monitoring.” Common complications include tube dislodgement, clogging, site infections, buried bumper syndrome, and aspiration. “Minimizing these risks requires a thorough understanding of patient-specific factors, careful technique during placement, and ongoing monitoring after the device is in use,” he added.

Paski said the update aligns with established guidelines for enteral access but also offers suggestions to mitigate the risk of tube placement in patients in whom placement has traditionally been more challenging. “This is a helpful addition to the literature because if enteral access cannot be obtained in a patient unable to meet their needs orally, total paternal nutrition is the next and much more invasive step for nutrition support.”

She called the practice update a concise, comprehensive reference for trainees and experienced gastroenterologists to optimize placement conditions and reduce complication risk, noting that training in nutrition is suboptimal in many GI fellowships.

Becoming familiar with common and advanced enteral access techniques is within the armamentarium of all practicing gastroenterologists, the authors stated. Because malnutrition affects nearly all GI disorders, “understanding common routes of enteral access and the basic principles of nutrition support promotes the initiation of optimal enteral nutrition, mitigating the impact of malnutrition, and improving prognosis for patients at nutritional risk,” they wrote.

Micic served on the advisory board for Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and is on the speaker’s bureau for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor served as a consultant for Merit Medical, Circa Scientific, and Aspero Medical. Paski and Shamah had disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 250,000 US hospitalized patients a year require enteral support using an artificial pathway into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver nutrition or medication. In light of this, AGA has issued a clinical practice update to improve the practice of endoscopic enteral access.

Covering indications, placement techniques, and management, the comprehensive document is a response to the increasing use of enteral access devices in chronic GI conditions. The update, published in Gastroenterology, addresses patient factors complicating placement decision-making such as thrombocytopenia, use of dual antiplatelet therapy, or performance of percutaneous access in the setting of cirrhosis.

 

“We provide clinical recommendations in these various scenarios understanding that the final decision-making is in the hands of the provider and care team,” said first author Dejan Micic, MD, a gastroenterologist and associate professor at University of Chicago Medical Center in Illinois at the time of the update (since relocated to Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago). “We hope this can serve a day-to-day purpose for clinical gastroenterologists and can be referenced as they encounter individuals with or needing an enteral access device.”

Traditionally, enteral access was reserved for patients with severe malnutrition or those unable to maintain oral intake. Recent recommendations emphasize early nutritional intervention including prehabilitation before major surgery, adjunctive therapy for oncology patients, and in specific inflammatory conditions such as Crohn’s disease. “These shifts recognize the role of enteral nutrition not only in preventing malnutrition but also as a therapeutic strategy,” Micic said in an interview.

There is, however, variability in the use of devices including the selection of appropriate units, technical aspects of placement, and subsequent management. “Such variability can lead to complications, suboptimal patient outcomes, and inefficiencies in care delivery,” Micic said.

He added that enteral access has been historically underemphasized in GI endoscopic training. “While procedural skill in placing devices such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or PEG, tubes is often taught, a comprehensive understanding of the broader clinical context — such as proper patient selection, prevention of complications, and postplacement care — is not always thoroughly covered.”

The current update aims to bridge knowledge gaps with evidence-based-guidance. “It also underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration with dietitians, nurses, and care givers to achieve the best outcomes for patients,” Micic said.

 

Commenting on the update but not involved with creating it, Shirley C. Paski, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, called it timely, adding: “As GI training is becoming more subspecialized and interventional radiology has been able to provide enteral access, gastroenterology training in enteral access has declined to where some fellows are graduating with limited enteral access experience.”

Yet malnutrition remains a common consequence when GI disease is severe, chronic, or refractory to treatment, or in the setting of postsurgical anatomy, she added. “Enteral nutrition is increasingly being considered a therapeutic or adjunct treatment in some cases of Crohn’s disease or small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Gastroenterologists need the endoscopic skill to secure enteral access tubes, particularly in more challenging anatomy.”

 

Also commenting on the document but not involved in it, Steven Shamah, MD, director of Endoscopy at Northwell Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said: “This should serve as a concise review for any general hospitalist or gastroenterologist to understand what we have and when we should offer the proper feeding tube options.” He stressed, however, that all gastroenterologists should be trained in the placing of all of tube options.

“The axiom ‘If the gut works, we should use it’ is something that I was taught when I was a medical student and it still holds true,” Shamah continued. “There’s been a jump in interventional procedures to assure continuity of the GI tract even in progressive malignancy. So there’s a rise in moving away from intravenous nutrition and a rise in tube-delivered enteral nutrition.” Options for reducing reflux and aspiration will likely take on more importance, he said.

 

Tubing Options

According to Micic and colleagues, recent data suggest a favorable safety profile of enteral feeding tubes placed endoscopically compared with surgical or radiologic placement. The illustrated AGA document outlines such approaches as synthetic flexible tubes placed into the stomach or small bowel via the oral (orogastric and oroenteral) or nasal routes (nasogastric [NG] and nasojejunal [NJ]) and percutaneous tubes accessing the stomach. The choice of tube, access point, delivery site, and feeding method varies with indication, expected duration of use, and patient anatomy, the authors stressed.

The update notes that NG and NJ tubes can be used immediately after confirmation of placement, most often with abdominal radiography. PEG tubes can be used immediately for medications and after 4 hours for tube feedings. A multidisciplinary team approach after placement provides improved patient care. “Dietitians assist with formula choice, volume, free water needs, and delivery method, and nurses and advanced practice clinicians assist with tube site assessment and troubleshooting,” the authors wrote.

Complications can occur but should be infrequent, Micic said. “Frankly, most complications can be predicted based on the duration of use and prevented with appropriate monitoring.” Common complications include tube dislodgement, clogging, site infections, buried bumper syndrome, and aspiration. “Minimizing these risks requires a thorough understanding of patient-specific factors, careful technique during placement, and ongoing monitoring after the device is in use,” he added.

Paski said the update aligns with established guidelines for enteral access but also offers suggestions to mitigate the risk of tube placement in patients in whom placement has traditionally been more challenging. “This is a helpful addition to the literature because if enteral access cannot be obtained in a patient unable to meet their needs orally, total paternal nutrition is the next and much more invasive step for nutrition support.”

She called the practice update a concise, comprehensive reference for trainees and experienced gastroenterologists to optimize placement conditions and reduce complication risk, noting that training in nutrition is suboptimal in many GI fellowships.

Becoming familiar with common and advanced enteral access techniques is within the armamentarium of all practicing gastroenterologists, the authors stated. Because malnutrition affects nearly all GI disorders, “understanding common routes of enteral access and the basic principles of nutrition support promotes the initiation of optimal enteral nutrition, mitigating the impact of malnutrition, and improving prognosis for patients at nutritional risk,” they wrote.

Micic served on the advisory board for Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and is on the speaker’s bureau for Takeda Pharmaceuticals. One coauthor served as a consultant for Merit Medical, Circa Scientific, and Aspero Medical. Paski and Shamah had disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.