User login
Is AI Use Causing Endoscopists to Lose Their Skills?
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat Intubation of the Sigmoid Colon Improves Adenoma Detection
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Large Language Models Cut Time, Cost of Guideline Development
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans Newly Diagnosed with GI Malignancies
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Diagnostic Challenges of Persistent Hypoglycemia in a Patient with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Out-of-Pocket Prep Costs Reduce Screening Colonoscopy Uptake, Especially in Vulnerable Populations
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Journal Highlights: May-July 2025
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.
Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.
Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.
Stomach
Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.
Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.
Colon
Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.
Pancreas
Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.
Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.
Hepatology
Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.
Miscellaneous
Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.
Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Follow-Up Colonoscopies Low After Blood-Based Screening
Alarming Rise in Early-Onset GI Cancers Calls for Early Screening, Lifestyle Change
, said the authors of a JAMA review.
In the US, early-onset GI cancers are increasing faster than any other type of early-onset cancer, including breast cancer. The trend is not limited to colorectal cancer (CRC). Gastric, pancreatic, esophageal, as well as many biliary tract and appendix cancers, are also on the rise in young adults, Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, and Thejus Jayakrishnan, MD, both with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, noted in their article.
The increase in early-onset GI cancers follows a “birth cohort effect,” with generational variation in risk, suggesting a potential association with changes in environmental exposures, Ng explained in an accompanying JAMA podcast.
All these GI cancers link strongly to multiple modifiable risk factors, and it is a “top area of investigation to determine exactly what environmental exposures are at play,” Ng added.
For many of these GI cancers, obesity has been the “leading hypothesis” given that rising rates seem to parallel the increase in incidence of these early-onset GI cancers, Ng explained.
“But we also have evidence, particularly strong for colorectal cancer, that dietary patterns, such as consuming a Western diet, as well as sedentary behavior and lifestyles seem to be associated with a significantly higher risk of developing these cancers at an age under 50,” Ng said.
Rising Incidence
Globally, among early-onset GI cancers reported in 2022, CRC was the most common (54%), followed by gastric cancer (24%), esophageal cancer (13%), and pancreatic cancer (9%).
In the US in 2022, 20,805 individuals were diagnosed with early-onset CRC, 2689 with early-onset gastric cancer, 2657 with early-onset pancreatic cancer, and 875 with early-onset esophageal cancer.
Since the mid-1990s, CRC among adults of all ages in the US declined by 1.3%-4.2% annually but early-onset CRC increased by roughly 2% per year in both men and women, and currently makes up about 14% of all CRC cases.
Early-onset pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer each currently make up about 5% of all cases of these cancers in the US.
Between 2010 and 2019, the number of newly diagnosed cases of early-onset GI cancers rose by nearly about 15%, with Black, Hispanic, Indigenous ancestry, and women disproportionately affected, Ng and coauthors noted in a related review published in the British Journal of Surgery.
Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors
Along with obesity and poor diet, other modifiable risk factors for early-onset GI cancers include sedentary lifestyle, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption.
Nonmodifiable risk factors include family history, hereditary cancer syndromes such as Lynch syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease.
Roughly 15%-30% of early-onset GI cancers have pathogenic germline variants in genes such as DNA mismatch repair genes and BRCA1/2.
All individuals with early-onset GI cancers should undergo germline and somatic genetic testing to guide treatment, screen for other cancers (eg, endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome), and assess familial risk, Ng and Jayakrishnan advised.
Treatment Challenges
Treatment for early-onset GI cancers is generally similar to later-onset GI cancers and prognosis for patients with early-onset GI cancers is “similar to or worse” than that for patients with later-onset GI cancers, highlighting the need for improved methods of prevention and early detection, the authors said.
Ng noted that younger cancer patients often face more challenges after diagnosis than older patients and benefit from multidisciplinary care, including referral for fertility counseling and preservation if appropriate, and psychosocial support.
“It is very difficult and challenging to receive a cancer diagnosis no matter what age you are, but when a person is diagnosed in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, there are unique challenges,” Ng said.
Studies have documented “much higher levels of psychosocial distress, depression and anxiety” in early-onset cancer patients, “and they also often experience more financial toxicity, disruptions in their education as well as their career and there may be fertility concerns,” Ng added.
Diagnostic Delays and Screening
Currently, screening is not recommended for most early-onset GI cancers — with the exception of CRC, with screening recommended for average-risk adults in the US starting at age 45.
Yet, despite this recommendation, fewer than 1 in 5 (19.7%) US adults aged 45-49 years were screened in 2021, indicating a significant gap in early detection efforts.
High-risk individuals, such as those with Lynch syndrome, a first-degree relative with CRC, or advanced colorectal adenoma, should begin CRC screening earlier, at an age determined by the specific risk factor.
“Studies have shown significant delays in diagnosis among younger patients. It’s important that prompt diagnosis happens so that these patients do not end up being diagnosed with advanced or metastatic stages of cancer, as they often are,” Ng said.
“Screening adherence is absolutely critical,” co-author Jayakrishnan added in a news release.
“We have strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening saves lives by reducing both the number of people who develop colorectal cancer and the number of people who die from it. Each missed screening is a lost opportunity to detect cancer early when it is more treatable, or to prevent cancer altogether by identifying and removing precancerous polyps,” Jayakrishnan said.This research had no funding. Ng reported receipt of nonfinancial support from Pharmavite, institutional grants from Janssen, and personal fees from Bayer, Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, CytomX, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Redesign Health, AbbVie, Etiome, and CRICO. Ng is an associate editor of JAMA but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance. Jayakrishnan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, said the authors of a JAMA review.
In the US, early-onset GI cancers are increasing faster than any other type of early-onset cancer, including breast cancer. The trend is not limited to colorectal cancer (CRC). Gastric, pancreatic, esophageal, as well as many biliary tract and appendix cancers, are also on the rise in young adults, Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, and Thejus Jayakrishnan, MD, both with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, noted in their article.
The increase in early-onset GI cancers follows a “birth cohort effect,” with generational variation in risk, suggesting a potential association with changes in environmental exposures, Ng explained in an accompanying JAMA podcast.
All these GI cancers link strongly to multiple modifiable risk factors, and it is a “top area of investigation to determine exactly what environmental exposures are at play,” Ng added.
For many of these GI cancers, obesity has been the “leading hypothesis” given that rising rates seem to parallel the increase in incidence of these early-onset GI cancers, Ng explained.
“But we also have evidence, particularly strong for colorectal cancer, that dietary patterns, such as consuming a Western diet, as well as sedentary behavior and lifestyles seem to be associated with a significantly higher risk of developing these cancers at an age under 50,” Ng said.
Rising Incidence
Globally, among early-onset GI cancers reported in 2022, CRC was the most common (54%), followed by gastric cancer (24%), esophageal cancer (13%), and pancreatic cancer (9%).
In the US in 2022, 20,805 individuals were diagnosed with early-onset CRC, 2689 with early-onset gastric cancer, 2657 with early-onset pancreatic cancer, and 875 with early-onset esophageal cancer.
Since the mid-1990s, CRC among adults of all ages in the US declined by 1.3%-4.2% annually but early-onset CRC increased by roughly 2% per year in both men and women, and currently makes up about 14% of all CRC cases.
Early-onset pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer each currently make up about 5% of all cases of these cancers in the US.
Between 2010 and 2019, the number of newly diagnosed cases of early-onset GI cancers rose by nearly about 15%, with Black, Hispanic, Indigenous ancestry, and women disproportionately affected, Ng and coauthors noted in a related review published in the British Journal of Surgery.
Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors
Along with obesity and poor diet, other modifiable risk factors for early-onset GI cancers include sedentary lifestyle, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption.
Nonmodifiable risk factors include family history, hereditary cancer syndromes such as Lynch syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease.
Roughly 15%-30% of early-onset GI cancers have pathogenic germline variants in genes such as DNA mismatch repair genes and BRCA1/2.
All individuals with early-onset GI cancers should undergo germline and somatic genetic testing to guide treatment, screen for other cancers (eg, endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome), and assess familial risk, Ng and Jayakrishnan advised.
Treatment Challenges
Treatment for early-onset GI cancers is generally similar to later-onset GI cancers and prognosis for patients with early-onset GI cancers is “similar to or worse” than that for patients with later-onset GI cancers, highlighting the need for improved methods of prevention and early detection, the authors said.
Ng noted that younger cancer patients often face more challenges after diagnosis than older patients and benefit from multidisciplinary care, including referral for fertility counseling and preservation if appropriate, and psychosocial support.
“It is very difficult and challenging to receive a cancer diagnosis no matter what age you are, but when a person is diagnosed in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, there are unique challenges,” Ng said.
Studies have documented “much higher levels of psychosocial distress, depression and anxiety” in early-onset cancer patients, “and they also often experience more financial toxicity, disruptions in their education as well as their career and there may be fertility concerns,” Ng added.
Diagnostic Delays and Screening
Currently, screening is not recommended for most early-onset GI cancers — with the exception of CRC, with screening recommended for average-risk adults in the US starting at age 45.
Yet, despite this recommendation, fewer than 1 in 5 (19.7%) US adults aged 45-49 years were screened in 2021, indicating a significant gap in early detection efforts.
High-risk individuals, such as those with Lynch syndrome, a first-degree relative with CRC, or advanced colorectal adenoma, should begin CRC screening earlier, at an age determined by the specific risk factor.
“Studies have shown significant delays in diagnosis among younger patients. It’s important that prompt diagnosis happens so that these patients do not end up being diagnosed with advanced or metastatic stages of cancer, as they often are,” Ng said.
“Screening adherence is absolutely critical,” co-author Jayakrishnan added in a news release.
“We have strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening saves lives by reducing both the number of people who develop colorectal cancer and the number of people who die from it. Each missed screening is a lost opportunity to detect cancer early when it is more treatable, or to prevent cancer altogether by identifying and removing precancerous polyps,” Jayakrishnan said.This research had no funding. Ng reported receipt of nonfinancial support from Pharmavite, institutional grants from Janssen, and personal fees from Bayer, Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, CytomX, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Redesign Health, AbbVie, Etiome, and CRICO. Ng is an associate editor of JAMA but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance. Jayakrishnan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, said the authors of a JAMA review.
In the US, early-onset GI cancers are increasing faster than any other type of early-onset cancer, including breast cancer. The trend is not limited to colorectal cancer (CRC). Gastric, pancreatic, esophageal, as well as many biliary tract and appendix cancers, are also on the rise in young adults, Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, and Thejus Jayakrishnan, MD, both with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, noted in their article.
The increase in early-onset GI cancers follows a “birth cohort effect,” with generational variation in risk, suggesting a potential association with changes in environmental exposures, Ng explained in an accompanying JAMA podcast.
All these GI cancers link strongly to multiple modifiable risk factors, and it is a “top area of investigation to determine exactly what environmental exposures are at play,” Ng added.
For many of these GI cancers, obesity has been the “leading hypothesis” given that rising rates seem to parallel the increase in incidence of these early-onset GI cancers, Ng explained.
“But we also have evidence, particularly strong for colorectal cancer, that dietary patterns, such as consuming a Western diet, as well as sedentary behavior and lifestyles seem to be associated with a significantly higher risk of developing these cancers at an age under 50,” Ng said.
Rising Incidence
Globally, among early-onset GI cancers reported in 2022, CRC was the most common (54%), followed by gastric cancer (24%), esophageal cancer (13%), and pancreatic cancer (9%).
In the US in 2022, 20,805 individuals were diagnosed with early-onset CRC, 2689 with early-onset gastric cancer, 2657 with early-onset pancreatic cancer, and 875 with early-onset esophageal cancer.
Since the mid-1990s, CRC among adults of all ages in the US declined by 1.3%-4.2% annually but early-onset CRC increased by roughly 2% per year in both men and women, and currently makes up about 14% of all CRC cases.
Early-onset pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer each currently make up about 5% of all cases of these cancers in the US.
Between 2010 and 2019, the number of newly diagnosed cases of early-onset GI cancers rose by nearly about 15%, with Black, Hispanic, Indigenous ancestry, and women disproportionately affected, Ng and coauthors noted in a related review published in the British Journal of Surgery.
Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Risk Factors
Along with obesity and poor diet, other modifiable risk factors for early-onset GI cancers include sedentary lifestyle, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption.
Nonmodifiable risk factors include family history, hereditary cancer syndromes such as Lynch syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease.
Roughly 15%-30% of early-onset GI cancers have pathogenic germline variants in genes such as DNA mismatch repair genes and BRCA1/2.
All individuals with early-onset GI cancers should undergo germline and somatic genetic testing to guide treatment, screen for other cancers (eg, endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome), and assess familial risk, Ng and Jayakrishnan advised.
Treatment Challenges
Treatment for early-onset GI cancers is generally similar to later-onset GI cancers and prognosis for patients with early-onset GI cancers is “similar to or worse” than that for patients with later-onset GI cancers, highlighting the need for improved methods of prevention and early detection, the authors said.
Ng noted that younger cancer patients often face more challenges after diagnosis than older patients and benefit from multidisciplinary care, including referral for fertility counseling and preservation if appropriate, and psychosocial support.
“It is very difficult and challenging to receive a cancer diagnosis no matter what age you are, but when a person is diagnosed in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, there are unique challenges,” Ng said.
Studies have documented “much higher levels of psychosocial distress, depression and anxiety” in early-onset cancer patients, “and they also often experience more financial toxicity, disruptions in their education as well as their career and there may be fertility concerns,” Ng added.
Diagnostic Delays and Screening
Currently, screening is not recommended for most early-onset GI cancers — with the exception of CRC, with screening recommended for average-risk adults in the US starting at age 45.
Yet, despite this recommendation, fewer than 1 in 5 (19.7%) US adults aged 45-49 years were screened in 2021, indicating a significant gap in early detection efforts.
High-risk individuals, such as those with Lynch syndrome, a first-degree relative with CRC, or advanced colorectal adenoma, should begin CRC screening earlier, at an age determined by the specific risk factor.
“Studies have shown significant delays in diagnosis among younger patients. It’s important that prompt diagnosis happens so that these patients do not end up being diagnosed with advanced or metastatic stages of cancer, as they often are,” Ng said.
“Screening adherence is absolutely critical,” co-author Jayakrishnan added in a news release.
“We have strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening saves lives by reducing both the number of people who develop colorectal cancer and the number of people who die from it. Each missed screening is a lost opportunity to detect cancer early when it is more treatable, or to prevent cancer altogether by identifying and removing precancerous polyps,” Jayakrishnan said.This research had no funding. Ng reported receipt of nonfinancial support from Pharmavite, institutional grants from Janssen, and personal fees from Bayer, Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, CytomX, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Redesign Health, AbbVie, Etiome, and CRICO. Ng is an associate editor of JAMA but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance. Jayakrishnan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Colonoscopy Costs Rise When Private Equity Acquires GI Practices, but Quality Does Not
Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.
In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.
Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.
The Study
This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.
The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.
The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.
Among the findings:
- Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for .
- The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
- Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
- No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.
Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators?
“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”
Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.”
Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.
Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”
Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.
“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.
The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”
This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold).
Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.
In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.
Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.
The Study
This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.
The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.
The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.
Among the findings:
- Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for .
- The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
- Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
- No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.
Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators?
“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”
Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.”
Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.
Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”
Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.
“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.
The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”
This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold).
Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.
In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.
Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.
The Study
This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.
The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.
The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.
Among the findings:
- Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for .
- The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
- Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
- No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.
Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators?
“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”
Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.”
Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.
Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”
Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.
“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.
The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”
This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold).
Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.