Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background and AimsThe dissemination of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been limited by its technical complexity and safety profile, particularly among non-experts. Various techniques and devices have facilitated the performance of ESD, but their yield and role in the path to learning ESD remain unclear.MethodsWe performed a systematic review by querying MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Japan Medical Abstracts Society specifically for comparative studies investigating the impact of assigned ESD techniques vs. conventional techniques among non-experts in ESD (< 50 ESD procedures). Procedural outcomes of efficacy, efficiency, and safety were assessed.ResultsWe identified 46 studies evaluating 54 cohorts in which a total 237 non-experts performed 2461 ESDs conventionally, and 1953 ESDs using an assigned ESD technique (knives, countertraction, miscellaneous techniques). The majority of studies were from East Asia (67%), single-center (96%), observational in design (61%), in an animal model (57%), and gastric location (63%). The most studied techniques were countertraction techniques (48% cohorts) and scissor knives (15% cohorts), both of which commonly enhanced efficiency of ESD, and less so efficacy or safety. Techniques found to be beneficial in experts were more likely to be beneficial in non-experts (70% concordance) than vice versa (47% concordance).ConclusionBased on the currently available literature, countertraction techniques and scissor knives should be considered for early incorporation into ESD training by non-experts. Several aspects of ESD training remain understudied, including techniques in Western non-experts, educational resources, and several commonly cited techniques. These areas should guide future investigation to enhance the pathway to learning ESD.

INTRODUCTION:Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement.METHODS:This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate.RESULTS:In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI −9.56% to −1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01).DISCUSSION:Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).

Background and aimsVerrucous esophageal carcinoma (VEC) is a rare malignancy that presents a diagnostic challenge. We aim to characterize the clinical and genomic features, tumor behavior, and treatment outcomes of VEC to guide clinical practice.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature and identified additional cases from Massachusetts General Hospital records and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We obtained individual VEC patient data and analyzed publicly available clinicogenomic data from TCGA. We performed a regression analysis comparing cases of VEC to esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) to identify factors influencing survival.ResultsA total of 135 patients were reported in 82 publications, and four unpublished cases from Massachusetts General Hospital (median age 65 years, 69% males, 48% smokers, 33% consumed alcohol). Symptoms were present at diagnosis in 95% of patients, most commonly dysphagia and weight loss. Median symptom onset to diagnosis time was 11.5 months with frequent misdiagnosis as Candida esophagitis. Among VEC cases with pathologic staging, lymph node metastases were rare (5%) compared to ESCC (40%). VEC was genomically characterized by enrichment of SMARCA4 missense mutations and a lack of pathogenic TP53 mutations. Despite its diagnostic elusiveness, in a multivariate regression analysis, VEC was detected at earlier stages (p =  < 0.001) compared to ESCC, and advanced stage was the only significant factor affecting survival (p = 0.013).ConclusionsVEC is a rare, clinically and genomically distinct subtype of ESCC. Recognition and diagnosis of this lesion may allow the pursuit of curative and less morbid treatment strategies.

To the Editor—We appreciate the commentary by Whiteley et al1 on our study in which several rapid indicators were used to detect residual contamination in gastrointestinal endoscopes following manual cleaning.2 The authors raise several concerns about an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measuring device used in our study, including our use of a single commercially available ATP device, our reliance on only 1 ATP test per component sampled, possible variability in ATP results, and the inability of ATP monitors to identify specific microbes or quantify colony counts.1 Indeed, rapid indicator testing in endoscope reprocessing is a relatively new arena, and more research is undoubtedly needed to evaluate the utility of various devices and determine the association between residual organic debris, viable microbes, and patient outcomes. [...]we sought to determine whether the recommended practice of visual inspection was an adequate standard for verifying whether manual cleaning had sufficiently removed residual contamination prior to exposing endoscopes to high-level disinfection.3,4 In addition to inspecting each component and the sampling materials for visually apparent evidence of residual contamination, our team conducted rapid indicator tests for blood, protein, and ATP. In summary, we found2 that endoscopes with and without visually apparent debris had levels of blood, protein, and ATP exceeding previously validated benchmarks.5,6 Although high ATP levels may indicate the presence of viable microbes,7,8 such results could also reflect the presence of blood or other types of cells.9 Indeed, we found ATP levels were quite high in every sample that also tested positive for blood.

The management of Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma has shifted away from esophagectomy and toward endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic resection and ablative therapies. The most commonly used ablative therapies are radiofrequency ablation and cryotherapy. Radiofrequency ablation has risen to the top of the management algorithm due to its favorable safety profile and established track record of efficacy in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s. Cryotherapy offers early promise as an alternatively safe and effective ablative modality. We review radiofrequency ablation and cryotherapy techniques, and updated data regarding their efficacy and safety as well as their roles in the management of Barrett’s esophagus.

Adjustments for lead and length time bias has been used when examining apparent survival advantages from screening procedures. However, these estimates depend on several assumptions and are modeled from malignancies that are fairly common and large cohorts are available. In smaller retrospective cohorts, adjustments themselves may be based on estimates that may not be biological nor statistically accurate, which can lead to divergent results as has been found in several recent studies of screening in Barrett’s esophagus. Only a prospective randomized controlled trial can really determine the benefit though this may not feasible.