Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus

Evaluating the discrepancies between evidence-based and community standard practices in the endoscopic examination of Barrett's esophagus: a nationwide survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). EAC is comparatively rare in Japan compared to Western countries, where BE management guidelines have been well established based on robust evidence. This study evaluated for gaps between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and real-world clinical practice for BE management in Japan and examined endoscopist adherence to Japanese and Western guidelines.

METHODS

A nationwide survey consisting of 19 questions was conducted among Japanese endoscopists to assess their diagnostic and surveillance practices for BE. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were employed to interpret key data.

RESULTS

Responses from 804 endoscopists revealed significant differences between Western guidelines and Japanese practices. Local adherence to standardized inspection times was 7.6%, and 30.7% of endoscopists used the Prague classification. Biopsies for BE diagnosis and random biopsies following the Seattle protocol were rarely performed. For long-segment BE, 51.4% of respondents reported using magnifying endoscopy. Regarding ultra-short-segment BE (USSBE), opinions were divided on whether it should be diagnosed as BE and if patients should be informed of its diagnosis. Approximately 40% of respondents advocated annual surveillance for USSBE, with a general tendency to recommend closer follow-up regardless of BE length as compared with Western guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlighted several incongruities between EBM and real-world practices for BE, as well as differences between Western and Japanese approaches. Bridging these gaps will require generating more Japan-specific evidence, refining guidelines, and then promoting their dissemination to harmonize best BE practices with international standards and Japanese clinical settings.

Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy Quality Measures

Quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy is a major determinant of its effectiveness. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance quality monitoring and improve endoscopy outcomes. This article reviews the current literature on AI algorithms that have been developed for endoscopy quality assessment.

Implementing educational interventions and key performance measures sustains quality of endoscopic assessment in patients with Barrett's esophagus

Background and study aims

Quality metrics for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are anticipated to improve outcomes for patients through earlier detection of neoplasia. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has developed guidelines to homogenize endoscopic quality in BE. Our study aimed to assess the impact of recommended key performance measures (KPMs) and their sustainability.

Patients and methods

A single-center, retrospective study (Phase 1) was conducted over 8 weeks. The KPMs assessed were: 1) pre-procedure metrics including indication, consent, safety checklist (target of 100%); and 2) Prague classification, Seattle protocol, or targeted biopsies, inspection time of 1 minute per cm, advanced imaging and surveillance recommendations (target of 90%). Following baseline analysis, multimodal educational interventions were implemented and repeated at 6-month intervals. Repeat analysis was performed at 6 months and 1 and 3 years (Phases 2, 3 and 4 respectively).

Results

In Phase 1, 39 patients with BE underwent endoscopy. Phase 2 evaluated 40 patients with BE. Phase 3 analyzed 59 patients with BE, and Phase 4 identified 34 patients with BE. Pre-procedure metrics were met in 100% of patients across the 3-year period. Baseline analysis displayed suboptimal performance at 45% to 75% for all other KPMs. However, after regular multimodal educational interventions, quality standards significantly improved and were able to be maintained over all phases, achieving pre-set targets of >9 0% for all KPMs except one.

Conclusions

Sustaining improvements in quality metrics in Barrett's endoscopy is important. Our study suggests that regular, replicable education interventions have a positive effect and allow sustained long-term improvements in quality metrics.

Deep Learning Models for Anatomical Location Classification in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Images and Videos: A Quantitative Evaluation with Clinical Data

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

During gastroscopy, accurately identifying the anatomical locations of the gastrointestinal tract is crucial for developing diagnostic aids, such as lesion localization and blind spot alerts.

METHODS

This study utilized a dataset of 31,403 still images from 1000 patients with normal findings to annotate the anatomical locations within the images and develop a classification model. The model was then applied to videos of 20 esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures, where it was validated for real-time location prediction. To address instability of predictions caused by independent frame-by-frame assessment, we implemented a hard-voting-based post-processing algorithm that aggregates results from seven consecutive frames, improving the overall accuracy.

RESULTS

Among the tested models, InceptionV3 demonstrated superior performance for still images, achieving an F1 score of 79.79%, precision of 80.57%, and recall of 80.08%. For video data, the InceptionResNetV2 model performed best, achieving an F1 score of 61.37%, precision of 73.08%, and recall of 57.21%. These results indicate that the deep learning models not only achieved high accuracy in position recognition for still images but also performed well on video data. Additionally, the post-processing algorithm effectively stabilized the predictions, highlighting its potential for real-time endoscopic applications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of predicting the gastrointestinal tract locations during gastroscopy and suggests a promising path for the development of advanced diagnostic aids to assist clinicians. Furthermore, the location information generated by this model can be leveraged in future technologies, such as automated report generation and supporting follow-up examinations for patients.

The 2023 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2023 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the GIE Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy compiled a list of the top 10 most significant topic areas in general and advanced GI endoscopy during the year. Each GIE Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate topics-significance, novelty, and impact on global clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting and a meeting of the entire GIE Editorial Board. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: GI bleeding, endohepatology, endoscopic palliation, artificial intelligence and polyp detection, artificial intelligence beyond the colon, better polypectomy and EMR, how to make endoscopy units greener, high-quality upper endoscopy, endoscopic tissue apposition and closure devices, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Each board member was assigned a topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this overview of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2023.

Optimal number of images and 2-year interval affect cancer detection in screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy: An observational study

We aimed to identify quality indicator for esophagogastroduodenoscopy for detecting upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Data from 43,526 consecutive health checkups from August 2012 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected. The study ultimately analyzed 42,387 examinations by 12 endoscopists who performed more than 1000 examinations, including all cancers detected. These endoscopists were classified either into fast/slow group based on their mean examination time for a normal finding of esophagogastroduodenoscopy during their first year of the examination, or small/large group based on number of endoscopic images, respectively. The association between UGI cancer detection rate and examination time or the number of images was analyzed, using 5 minutes or 50 images as cutoff values. The detection rate of overall (8 pharyngeal, 39 esophageal, 69 gastric) cancers in the fast, slow, small, and large groups were 0.17%, 0.32%, 0.21%, and 0.31%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, endoscopists in the fast group or the small group were less likely to detect overall UGI cancer (OR: 0.596, 95% CI: 0.373-0.952, P = .030; OR: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.434-0.979, P = .039). Additionally, repeated endoscopy within 2 years had a higher overall cancer detection rate, compared with repeated screening after 2 years. In a sub-analysis, a significant negative relationship was found between the detection rate of gastric cancer and the number of gastric images < 35 (OR: 0.305, 95% CI: 0.189-0.492, P = .000). There was also a negative correlation trend between the detection rate of pharyngeal and esophageal cancers and the number of esophageal images < 11 (OR: 0.395, 95% CI: 0.156-1.001, P = .050). The optimal number of images and screening 2-year interval are considered useful quality indicators for detecting UGI cancer. This study also suggests that a total of 50 images, or 35 images of the stomach are suitable for detecting UGI cancer, or gastric cancer, during screening endoscopy.

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Road map to small bowel endoscopy quality indicators

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quality indicators for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy are well established and linked to patient outcomes. However, there is a perceived gap in the development and implementation of quality indicators for small bowel endoscopy. In this review, we aimed to discuss the development of quality indicators in small bowel endoscopy and their implementation in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The proposed quality indicators for small bowel endoscopy focus on process measures, which mainly evaluate the procedural aspects, rather than the outcomes or the overall patient experience. These quality indicators have rarely been studied in clinical practice, leading to a limited understanding of their applicability and impact on patient outcomes and experience.

SUMMARY

Real-world studies evaluating the quality indicators of small bowel endoscopy are warranted to establish an evidence-based framework for their practical application and effectiveness. Linking these indicators to relevant patient outcomes is crucial for their broader acceptance and implementation.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Quality indicators in Barrett's endoscopy: Best is yet to come

There is growing interest in establishing quality indicators (QIs) for endoscopic screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus (BE). QIs are objective, measurable, and evidence-based metrics that are applicable in a health-care setting to monitor a process and identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to achieve defined goals. In the Barrett's endoscopy setting, QIs can offer a standardized approach to monitor and maintain high-quality endoscopy for BE screening and surveillance that will allow measuring performance of an endoscopist as an individual, a group, or a facility. Since BE is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition with histological corroboration, adherence to QIs is paramount for the early and accurate detection of dysplasia and neoplasia. It is the holy grail for BE screening and surveillance. Although several suggested QIs for Barrett's endoscopy exist, issues remain in determining the most appropriate ones. These issues include inconsistent use of terminology, unclear definitions, and a scarcity of studies linking these QIs with relevant patient outcomes, making it difficult for clinicians to understand the concept and clinical importance. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine what should constitute appropriate QIs for Barrett's endoscopy, clearly define items used in the QIs, and identify ways to measure these KPIs. Ultimately, well-defined and validated QIs will contribute to clinically effective, safe, timely, and patient-focused care. In this review, we summarize recent literature and discuss four proposed QIs: (i) neoplasia detection rate; (ii) postendoscopy Barrett's neoplasia; (iii) Barrett's inspection time; and (iv) adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol.

Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Current studies have shown that longer observation time can improve neoplastic detection rate. This study aimed to clarify whether endoscopists with longer observation times can detect more focal lesions.

METHODS

Based on the mean examination time for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) without biopsy, endoscopists were divided into fast and slow groups, and the detection rate of focal lesions was compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis, multivariate analysis and restricted cubic spline were used to explore the factors of focal lesion detection rate.

RESULTS

Mean examination time of EGD without biopsy was 4.5 min. The cut-off times used were 5 min. 17 endoscopists were classified into the fast (4.7 ± 3.6 min), and 16 into the slow (7.11 ± 4.6 min) groups. Compared with fast endoscopists, slow endoscopists had a higher detection rate of focal lesions (47.2% vs. 51.4%, P < 0.001), especially in the detection of gastric lesions (29.7% vs. 35.9%, P < 0.001). In univariate and multivariate analyses, observation time, patient age and gender, expert, biopsy rate, and number of images were factors in FDR. There is a nonlinear relationship between observation time and FDR.

CONCLUSION

Longer examination time improves the detection rate of focal lesions. Observation time is an important quality indicator of the EGD examination.

Adherence to quality indicators and best practices in surveillance endoscopy of Barrett's esophagus: A video-based assessment

Background and study aims Adherence to quality indicators (QIs) and best practices (BPs) for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is low based on clinical documentation which is an inaccurate representation of events occurring during procedures. This study aimed to assess adherence to measurable QI and BP using video evaluation. Methods We performed a single center video-based retrospective review of surveillance endoscopies performed for BE ≥1 cm between March 1, 2018 and October 1, 2020. Adherence to QIs and BPs was assessed through video review and documentation. Videos were evaluated by five gastroenterologists. Interrater variability was determined using 10 videos before reviewing the remaining 128 videos. A generalized linear regression model was used to determine predictors of adherence to QIs and BPs. Results There were 138 endoscopies reviewed. Inspection with virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) occurred in 75 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 50 of these cases (67%). Adherence to the Seattle protocol (SP) occurred in 74 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 28 of these cases (38%). Use of VC or the SP was documented but not observed on video review in 16 (12%) and 30 (22%) cases, respectively. Length of BE was associated with increased use of the Prague classification (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.37) while years in practice was associated with a decreased likelihood of VC use (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Conclusions This study validates prior data demonstrating poor adherence to QIs and BPs and highlights discrepancies between clinical documentation and events occurring during procedures.

Dedicated service for Barrett's oesophagus surveillance endoscopy yields higher dysplasia detection and guideline adherence in a non-tertiary setting in the UK: a 5-year comparative cohort study

Objective

Barrett's oesophagus (BO) endoscopic surveillance is performed to varying quality, dedicated services may offer improved outcomes. This study compares a dedicated BO service to standard care, specifically dysplasia detection rate (DDR), guideline adherence and use of advanced imaging modalities in a non-tertiary setting.

Design/method

5-year retrospective comparative cohort study comparing a dedicated BO endoscopy service with surveillance performed on non-dedicated slots at a non-tertiary centre in the UK. All adult patients undergoing BO surveillance between 1 March 2016 and 1 March 2021 were reviewed and those who underwent endoscopy on a dedicated BO service run by endoscopists with training in BO was compared with patients receiving their BO surveillance on any other endoscopy list. Endoscopy reports, histology results and clinic letters were reviewed for DDR and British society of gastroenterology guideline adherence.

Results

921 BO procedures were included (678 patients). 574 (62%) endoscopies were on a dedicated BO list vs 348 (38%) on non-dedicated.DDR was significantly higher in the dedicated cohort 6.3% (36/568) vs 2.7% (9/337) (p=0.014). Significance was sustained when cases with indefinite for dysplasia were excluded: 4.9% 27/533 vs 0.9% 3/329 (p=0.002). Guideline adherence was significantly better on the dedicated endoscopy lists.Factors associated with dysplasia detection in regression analysis included visible lesion documentation (p=0.036), use of targeted biopsies (p=<0.001), number of biopsies obtained (p≤0.001).

Conclusions

A dedicated Barrett's service showed higher DDR and guideline adherence than standard care and may be beneficial pending randomised trial data.

Enhancing the Quality of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Current Indicators and Future Trends

The quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) is crucial and carries significant consequences for patient outcomes, the employment of healthcare resources, and the future course of gastroenterology as a medical specialty. In this review, we navigate through the terrain of the Quality Indicators (QIs) for EGD, shedding light on their indispensable function in ensuring and augmenting the quality of patient care throughout the pre-procedural, intra-procedural, post-procedural, and outcome-oriented facets of the practice. We delve into the comprehensive scope of the QIs and the challenges impeding the delivery of high-quality EGD, from variability in practitioner training and patient compliance to the systemic limitations of current QIs and the barriers hindering the adoption of advanced techniques. Future directions for bolstering the quality of EGD are highlighted, encapsulating the integration of emergent endoscopic technologies, the evolution of patient-centered metrics, the refinement of endoscopist training and credentialing processes, and the promise held by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Particular emphasis is placed on the role of advanced endoscopic techniques and equipment in enhancing EGD quality. This article presents a cogent narrative, promoting the pursuit of excellence in EGD as an ever-evolving endeavor that necessitates the collective dedication of clinicians, researchers, educators, and policymakers.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of dysplasia and cancer at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.

Setting 6-Minute Minimal Examination Time Improves the Detection of Focal Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Lesions During Endoscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Positive correlation between examination time and neoplasm detection using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been described by observational studies, but the effect of setting minimal examination time still requires investigation.

METHODS

This prospective, 2-stage, interventional study was conducted in 7 tertiary hospitals in China, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing intravenously sedated diagnostic EGDs. In stage I, the baseline examination time was collected without informing the endoscopists. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set for the same endoscopist according to the median examination time of normal EGDs in stage I. The primary outcome was the focal lesion detection rate (FDR), defined as the proportion of subjects with at least one focal lesion among all subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 847 and 1,079 EGDs performed by 21 endoscopists were included in stages I and II, respectively. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set as 6 minutes, and the median time for normal EGD increased from 5.8 to 6.3 minutes ( P < 0.001). Between the 2 stages, the FDR was significantly improved (33.6% vs 39.3%, P = 0.011), and the effect of the intervention was significant (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52; P = 0.022) even after adjusting for subjects' age, smoking status, endoscopists' baseline examination time, and working experience. The detection rate of high-risk lesions (neoplastic lesions and advanced atrophic gastritis) was also significantly higher in stage II (3.3% vs 5.4%, P = 0.029). In the endoscopist-level analysis, all practitioners reached a median examination time of 6 minutes, and the coefficients of variation of FDR (36.9%-26.2%) and examination time (19.6%-6.9%) decreased in stage II.

DISCUSSION

Setting a 6-minute minimal examination time significantly improved the detection of focal lesions during EGDs and has the potential to be implemented for quality improvement.

The effect of procedural time on dysplasia detection rate during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with Seattle protocol biopsies is time-consuming and inadequately performed in routine practice. There is no recommended procedural time for BE surveillance. We investigated the duration of surveillance procedures with adequate tissue sampling and effect on dysplasia detection rate (DDR). METHODS : We performed post hoc analysis from the standard arm of a crossover randomized controlled trial recruiting patients with BE (≥C2 and/or ≥M3) and no clearly visible dysplastic lesions. After inspection with white-light imaging, targeted biopsies of subtle lesions and Seattle protocol biopsies were performed. Procedure duration and biopsy number were stratified by BE length. The effect of endoscopy-related variables on DDR was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS : Of 142 patients recruited, 15 (10.6 %) had high grade dysplasia/intramucosal cancer and 15 (10.6 %) had low grade dysplasia. The median procedural time was 16.5 minutes (interquartile range 14.0-19.0). Endoscopy duration increased by 0.9 minutes for each additional 1 cm of BE length. Seattle protocol biopsies had higher sensitivity for dysplasia than targeted biopsies (86.7 % vs. 60.0 %; P = 0.045). Longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection on quadrantic biopsies (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95 %CI 1.00-1.20, P = 0.04), and for patients with BE > 6 cm also on targeted biopsies (OR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.04-1.40; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS : In BE patients with no clearly visible dysplastic lesions, longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection. Adequate time slots are required to perform good-quality surveillance and maximize dysplasia detection.

Surveillance in Barrett's Esophagus: Challenges, Progress, and Possibilities

Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus, aiming to detect prevalent dysplasia and adenocarcinoma, followed by effective endoscopic treatment, is an integral part of the esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention paradigm. However, several limitations, such as the subtle appearance of dysplasia, sampling error (inherent in current surveillance protocols), and noncompliance with surveillance recommendations, lead to missed dysplasia and neoplasia, reducing the effectiveness of surveillance as currently practiced. Careful endoscopic assessment with high-resolution white-light endoscopy, dye-based or electronic chromoendoscopy, and comprehensive sampling of the BE mucosa, remains the cornerstone of endoscopic surveillance. Emerging innovations in this area span the gamut of more efficient sampling methods, advanced imaging tools, artificial intelligence, and molecular marker-powered approaches as adjuncts, to identify prevalent and predict incident dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. Development and implementation of validated quality indicators will allow additional advancement of this critical field. These approaches will hopefully enable efficient and effective cancer prevention and treatment.

Management of Post Ablative Barrett's Esophagus: a Review of Current Practices and Look at Emerging Technologies

Purpose of review

Endoscopic eradication therapy is an effective and durable treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE) related neoplasia, but even after achieving successful eradication, these patients remain at risk for recurrence and require ongoing routine examinations. The optimal surveillance protocol including endoscopic technique, sampling strategy, and timing are still being refined. The aim of this review is to discuss current management principles for the post ablation patient and emerging technologies to guide clinical practice.

Recent findings

There is increasing evidence to support less frequent surveillance exams in the first year after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia and a move towards targeted biopsies of visible lesions and sampling high-risk locations such as the gastroesophageal junction. Promising technologies on the horizon that could impact management include novel biomarkers, personalized surveillance intervals, and non-endoscopic approaches.

Summary

Ongoing high-quality examinations after endoscopic eradication therapy are key to limiting recurrent BE. Surveillance intervals should be based on the pretreatment grade of dysplasia. Future research should focus on technologies and surveillance practices that are most efficient for patients and the healthcare system.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus

Barrett's esophagus is a metaplastic change of esophageal mucosa, which can be characterized by its salmon-colored lining and the presence of columnar epithelium with goblet cells. It is a well-established precancerous state of esophageal adenocarcinoma, a tumor with very poor survival rates, which incidence is rapidly growing. Despite numerous research, the debate about its diagnosis and management is still ongoing. This article aims to provide an overview of the current recommendations and new discoveries regarding the subject.

A root cause analysis system to establish the most plausible explanation for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer

BACKGROUND : Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations. METHODS : The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6-36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs. RESULTS : Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5-81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A - lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B - lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C - possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D - possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E - deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F - deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists' mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient -0.57; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION : Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated Review

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a change in the distal esophageal mucosal lining, whereby metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces squamous epithelium of the esophagus. This change represents a pre-malignant mucosal transformation which has a known association with the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a risk factor for BE, other risk factors include patients who are Caucasian, age > 50 years, central obesity, tobacco use, history of peptic stricture and erosive gastritis. Screening for BE remains selective based on risk factors, a screening program in the general population is not routinely recommended. Diagnosis of BE is established with a combination of endoscopic recognition, targeted biopsies, and histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia. We aim to provide a comprehensive review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, screening and advanced techniques of detecting and eradicating Barrett’s esophagus.

The Approach to Performance of Quality Upper Endoscopy in Lynch Syndrome (QUELS): An International Expert Statement

Strong evidence demonstrates the protective benefit of frequent colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer prevention in Lynch Syndrome (LS) and is endorsed by many guidelines. Until recently, the evidence supporting the utility of upper endoscopy [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer surveillance was limited. Over the last 3 years, multiple studies have demonstrated that EGD surveillance in LS is associated with the detection of both precancerous lesions and early-stage UGI cancers. On the basis of the emerging favorable evidence derived from EGD surveillance programs, the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for LS recommend UGI surveillance with EGD starting between age 30 and 40 years with repeat EGDs every 2 to 4 years, preferably in conjunction with colonoscopy, in all patients with a germline pathogenic variant (PV) in MLH1, MSH2, EPCAM, and MSH6 and, because of the lack of data, consideration in PMS2. Standardization of the approach to performing EGD surveillance in LS and reporting clinically actionable findings is requisite for both improving quality and understanding the cost efficiency and outcomes of patients undergoing EGD as a surveillance tool. Accordingly, the primary objective of this Quality of Upper Endoscopy in Lynch Syndrome (QUELS) statement is to articulate a framework for standardizing the approach to performing and reporting EGD findings in patients with LS by introducing emerging quality metrics. The recommendations presented herein were developed from available evidence and consensus-based expert opinion and provide a practical approach for clinicians applying EGD surveillance in accordance with the most recent and existing LS guidelines.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

METHODS

The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

Quality of upper GI endoscopy: a prospective cohort study on impact of endoscopist education

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines on quality of upper GI (UGI) endoscopy have been proposed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, these guidelines have not been evaluated in clinical practice. We aimed to measure the impact of endoscopist education on the quality of gastroscopy based on these guidelines and the association between compliance with guidelines and the detection of clinically significant premalignant pathology such as Barrett's esophagus (BE), esophageal squamous dysplasia, gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

Endoscopists participated in a 1-hour education session on recommended performance measures and endoscopic detection of premalignant pathologies. A controlled before and after study was performed, measuring compliance with guidelines and rates of detection of pathology in control and intervention groups.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 2719 procedures were performed: 1412 in the control group and 1307 in the intervention group. The proportion of procedures complying with guidelines was higher in the intervention group. The use of biopsy sampling protocols (eg, management of precancerous conditions of the stomach, 52% vs 91%; P = .007) and standardized terminology (eg, Forrest classification, 24% vs 68%; P < .001) was significantly higher. Detection of H pylori was higher in the intervention group (5.5% vs 9.8%, P = .003). Minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with detection of BE (7.4% vs 2.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple endoscopist education session enhanced the quality of UGI endoscopy by improving compliance with BSG and ESGE recommendations and increasing the detection of clinically significant pathology. A minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with increased diagnostic yield and may be a feasible quality indicator for clinical practice.

Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia after a negative index endoscopy: a systematic review and proposal for definitions and performance measures in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

A high rate of neoplasia, both high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has been reported in Barrett's esophagus at index endoscopy, but precise rates of post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia (PEBN) are unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed examining electronic databases (inception to October 2021) for studies reporting PEBN. Consistent with the definitions of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we defined neoplasia (HGD/EAC) detected at index endoscopy and/or within 6 months of a negative index endoscopy as "prevalent" neoplasia, that detected after 6 months of a negative index endoscopy and prior to next surveillance interval (i. e. 3 years) as PEBN or "interval" neoplasia, and that detected after 36 months from a negative index endoscopy as "incident" neoplasia. The pooled incidence rates and proportions relative to total neoplasia were analyzed.

RESULTS

11 studies (n = 59 795; 61 % men; mean [SD] age 62.3 [3.3] years) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence rates were: prevalent neoplasia 4.5 % (95 %CI 2.2 %-8.9 %) at baseline and an additional 0.3 % (0.1 %-0.7 %) within the first 6 months, PEBN 0.52 % (0.46 %-0.58 %), and incident neoplasia 1.4 % (0.9 %-2.1 %). At 3 years from the index endoscopy, PEBN accounted for 3 % of total Barrett's neoplasia, while prevalent neoplasia accounted for 97 %.

CONCLUSION

Neoplasia detected at or within 6 months of index endoscopy accounts for most cases of Barrett's neoplasia (> 90 %). PEBN accounts for ~3 % of cases and can be used for validation in future. This highlights the importance of a high quality index endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and the need to establish quality benchmarks to measure endoscopists' performance.

Endoscopic Management of Esophageal Cancer

Advances in technology and improved understanding of the pathobiology of esophageal cancer have allowed endoscopy to serve a growing role in the management of this disease. Precursor lesions can be detected using enhanced diagnostic modalities and eradicated with ablation therapy. Furthermore, evolution in endoscopic resection has provided larger specimens for improved diagnostic accuracy and offer potential for cure of early esophageal cancer. In patients with advanced esophageal cancer, endoluminal therapy can improve symptom burden and provide therapeutic options for complications such as leaks, perforations, and fistulas. The purpose of this review article is to highlight the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis, treatment, and palliation of esophageal cancer.

Rio de Janeiro Global Consensus on Landmarks, Definitions, and Classifications in Barrett's Esophagus: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the significant advances made in the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE), there is still a need for standardized definitions, appropriate recognition of endoscopic landmarks, and consistent use of classification systems. Current controversies in basic definitions of BE and the relative lack of anatomic knowledge are significant barriers to uniform documentation. We aimed to provide consensus-driven recommendations for uniform reporting and global application.

METHODS

The World Endoscopy Organization Barrett's Esophagus Committee appointed leaders to develop an evidence-based Delphi study. A working group of 6 members identified and formulated 23 statements, and 30 internationally recognized experts from 18 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting. We defined consensus as agreement by ≥80% of experts for each statement and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

After 3 rounds of voting, experts achieved consensus on 6 endoscopic landmarks (palisade vessels, gastroesophageal junction, squamocolumnar junction, lesion location, extraluminal compressions, and quadrant orientation), 13 definitions (BE, hiatus hernia, squamous islands, columnar islands, Barrett's endoscopic therapy, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation, systematic inspection, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, complete eradication of dysplasia, residual disease, recurrent disease, and failure of endoscopic therapy), and 4 classification systems (Prague, Los Angeles, Paris, and Barrett's International NBI Group). In round 1, 18 statements (78%) reached consensus, with 12 (67%) receiving strong agreement from more than half of the experts. In round 2, 4 of the remaining statements (80%) reached consensus, with 1 statement receiving strong agreement from 50% of the experts. In the third round, a consensus was reached on the remaining statement.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed evidence-based, consensus-driven statements on endoscopic landmarks, definitions, and classifications of BE. These recommendations may facilitate global uniform reporting in BE.

The relation of esophagogastroduodenoscopy time and novel upper gastrointestinal quality measures

OBJECTIVES

Various measures of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) quality have been proposed so far and the examination time was one of the first. The aim of the study was to compare the procedure time with novel novel quality measures - composite detection rate (CDR) and endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR).

METHODS

It was prospective observational study. A total of 880 diagnostic EGDs conducted from 01.2019 to 07.2019 have been enrolled in the study.

RESULTS

Median EGD time was 4.2 min. Procedures of longer duration were marked with higher CDR (26.3% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.0001), higher EBR (44.9% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001), and better upper gastrointestinal neoplasm (UGN) detection (1.8% vs. 0%; P = 0.004) in comparison with procedures of shorter duration. The procedures were divided into 4 groups based on the time quartiles (group 1 <3.3 min; group 2 3.3-4.2 min; group 3 4.2-5.3 min; group 4 >5.3 min). The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for biopsy rate were 2.42 (95% CI, 1.33-4.55), 4.33 (95% CI, 2.46-7.94), and 5.51 (95% CI, 3.18-10.03), respectively, in comparison with group 1. The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for CDR were 3.18 (95% CI, 2.03-4.97), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.51-8.50), and 23.44 (95% CI, 14.3-38.4), respectively, in comparison with group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure time is related to novel metrics - CDR and EBR. It is also related to UGN. Based on our findings it could be concluded that EGD should not last less than 4.2 min.

Lessons learned: Preventable misses and near-misses of endoscopic procedures

Endoscopy is a complex procedure that requires advanced training and a highly skilled practitioner. The advances in the field of endoscopy have made it an invaluable diagnostic tool, but the procedure remains provider dependent. The quality of endoscopy may vary from provider to provider and, as a result, is not perfect. Consequently, 11.3% of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms are missed on the initial upper endoscopy and 2.1%-5.9% of colorectal polyps or cancers are missed on colonoscopy. Pathology is overlooked if endoscopic exam is not done carefully, bypassing proper visualization of the scope's entry and exit points or, if exam is not taken to completion, not visualizing the most distal bowel segments. We hope to shed light on this issue, establish areas of weakness, and propose possible solutions and preventative measures.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Management of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: When to survey? When to ablate?

Barrett’s esophagus (BE), a precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), is defined as salmon-colored mucosa extending more than 1 cm proximal to the gastroesophageal junction with histological evidence of intestinal metaplasia. The actual risk of EAC in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE) is low with an annual incidence of 0.3%. The mainstay in the management of NDBE is control of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) along with enrollment in surveillance programs. The current recommendation for surveillance is four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm (or 1 cm in known or suspected dysplasia) followed by biopsy of mucosal irregularity (nodules, ulcers, or other visible lesions) performed at 3- to 5-year intervals. Challenges to surveillance include missed cancers, suboptimal adherence to surveillance guidelines, and lack of strong evidence for efficacy. There is minimal role for endoscopic eradication therapy in NDBE. The role for enhanced imaging techniques, artificial intelligence, and risk prediction models using clinical data and molecular markers is evolving.

Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Performance Measures for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Nationwide Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

Background

The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience.

Objective

To assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy.

Methods

All endoscopist members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited from October 2018 to December 2018 to participate to a self-administered questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographics and professional characteristics, and the recent ESGE quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy.

Results

A total of 392 endoscopists participated in the study. Only a minority (18.2%) of participants recorded the duration of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 51% provided accurate photo documentation in the minimum standard of 90% of cases. Almost all endoscopists correctly used Prague and Los Angeles classifications (87.8% and 98.2%, respectively), as well as Seattle and Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS) biopsy protocols (86.5% and 91.4%, respectively). However, only 52.8% of participants monitored complications after therapeutic EGD, and 40.8% recorded patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE). With regard to colonoscopy, almost all endoscopists (93.9%) used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for measuring bowel preparation quality and reported a cecal intubation rate ≥90%. However, about a quarter (26.2%) of participants reported an adenoma detection rate of <25%, only 52.8% applied an appropriate polypectomy technique, 48% monitored complications after the procedure, and 12.4% measured patient's experience.

Conclusion

The adherence of endoscopists to ESGE performance measures for GI endoscopy is sub-optimal in Italy. There is a need to disseminate and implement performance measures and endorse educational and scientific interventions on the quality of endoscopy.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.

Endoscopic diagnosis and screening of Barrett's esophagus: Inconsistency of diagnostic criteria between Japan and Western countries

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). To diagnose BE precisely, careful inspection of the anatomic landmarks, including the esophagogastric junction and the squamocolumnar junction is important. The distal end of the palisade vessels and the proximal end of the gastric folds are used as the landmark of the esophagogastric junction in endoscopic diagnosis, with the latter solely used internationally, except in some Asian countries, including Japan. In addition, the diagnostic criteria adopted internationally for BE are inconsistent, particularly between Japan and Western countries. Recently updated guidelines in Western countries have included length criteria, with a 1‐cm threshold of columnar epithelium by endoscopic observation and/or histologic confirmation of the presence of specialized intestinal metaplasia. Since BE is endoscopically diagnosed at any length without histologic assessment in Japan, the reported prevalence of short‐segment BE is very high in Japan compared with that in Western countries. Although guidelines on screening exist for BE, the current strategies based on the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with multiple risk factors may miss the opportunity for early detection of EAC. Indeed, up to 40% of patients with EAC have no history of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. To discuss BE on the same footing worldwide, standardization of diagnostic criteria, screening indication, and establishment of effective techniques for detecting dysplastic lesions are eagerly awaited. Japanese guidelines for BE should be revised regarding the length criteria, including the minimum length and long‐segment BE, in line with the recently updated Western guidelines.

Today’s Mistakes and Tomorrow’s Wisdom in Endoscopic Imaging of Barrett’s Esophagus

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is one of the main causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide and its incidence is rising. Barrett’s esophagus (BE) can develop low- and high-grade dysplasia which can progress to EAC overtime. The golden standard to detect dysplastic BE (DBE) or EAC is surveillance with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and random biopsies according to the Seattle protocol. However, this method is time-consuming and associated with a remarkable miss rate. Therefore, there is great need for the development of novel reliable techniques to optimize surveillance strategies and improve detection rates. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Optical chromoendoscopy (OC) techniques like narrow-band imaging have shown improved detection of DBE and EAC compared to HD-WLE and random biopsies. Most recent OC techniques, including the iSCAN optical enhancement system and linked color imaging, showed improved characterization of DBE and EAC retrospectively. Fluorescence molecular endoscopy (FME) presented promising results to highlight DBE and EAC. Moreover, with the establishment of well-performing delineation computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms and the first real-time CAD system for EAC, we expect clinical application of CAD in the near future. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Despite impressive progress made in the development of advanced endoscopic techniques, combined HD-WLE/OC followed by random biopsies remains the golden standard for BE surveillance. Surveillance depends on appropriate mucosal cleansing, sufficient inspection time, and competence of the performing gastroenterologist to improve detection of EAC. In addition, to facilitate the clinical implementation of advanced endoscopic techniques, multicenter prospective clinical studies are demanded for OC and FME. Meanwhile, further optimization of CAD algorithms, the education of gastroenterologists, and analysis of the interaction between the clinician and the computer should be performed.

Real-Time Multi-Label Upper Gastrointestinal Anatomy Recognition from Gastroscope Videos

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a critical step in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disorders. However, due to inexperience or high workload, there is a wide variation in EGD performance by endoscopists. Variations in performance may result in exams that do not completely cover all anatomical locations of the stomach, leading to a potential risk of missed diagnosis of gastric diseases. Numerous guidelines or expert consensus have been proposed to assess and optimize the quality of endoscopy. However, there is a lack of mature and robust methods to accurately apply to real clinical real-time video environments. In this paper, we innovatively define the problem of recognizing anatomical locations in videos as a multi-label recognition task. This can be more consistent with the model learning of image-to-label mapping relationships. We propose a combined structure of a deep learning model (GL-Net) that combines a graph convolutional network (GCN) with long short-term memory (LSTM) networks to both extract label features and correlate temporal dependencies for accurate real-time anatomical locations identification in gastroscopy videos. Our methodological evaluation dataset is based on complete videos of real clinical examinations. A total of 29,269 images from 49 videos were collected as a dataset for model training and validation. Another 1736 clinical videos were retrospectively analyzed and evaluated for the application of the proposed model. Our method achieves 97.1% mean accuracy (mAP), 95.5% mean per-class accuracy and 93.7% average overall accuracy in a multi-label classification task, and is able to process these videos in real-time at 29.9 FPS. In addition, based on our approach, we designed a system to monitor routine EGD videos in detail and perform statistical analysis of the operating habits of endoscopists, which can be a useful tool to improve the quality of clinical endoscopy.

Advanced imaging and artificial intelligence for Barrett's esophagus: What we should and soon will do

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a well-established risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. It is recommended that patients have regular endoscopic surveillance, with the ultimate goal of detecting early-stage neoplastic lesions before they can progress to invasive carcinoma. Detection of both dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma permits curative endoscopic treatments, and with this aim, thorough endoscopic assessment is crucial and improves outcomes. The burden of missed neoplasia in BE is still far from being negligible, likely due to inappropriate endoscopic surveillance. Over the last two decades, advanced imaging techniques, moving from traditional dye-spray chromoendoscopy to more practical virtual chromoendoscopy technologies, have been introduced with the aim to enhance neoplasia detection in BE. As witnessed in other fields, artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the field of diagnostic endoscopy and is set to cover a pivotal role in BE as well. The aim of this commentary is to comprehensively summarize present evidence, recent research advances, and future perspectives regarding advanced imaging technology and AI in BE; the combination of computer-aided diagnosis to a widespread adoption of advanced imaging technologies is eagerly awaited. It will also provide a useful step-by-step approach for performing high-quality endoscopy in BE, in order to increase the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in clinical practice.

Developing patient-orientated Barrett's oesophagus services: the role of dedicated services

Introduction

Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) is common and is a precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma with a 0.33% per annum risk of progression. Surveillance and follow-up services for BO have been shown to be lacking, with studies showing inadequate adherence to guidelines and patients reporting a need for greater disease-specific knowledge. This review explores the emerging role of dedicated services for patients with BO.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, HMIC, BNI, CiNAHL, AMED and PsycINFO in regard to dedicated BO care pathways was undertaken.

Results

Prospective multicentre and randomised trials were lacking. Published cohort data are encouraging with improvements in guideline adherence with dedicated services, with one published study showing significant improvements in dysplasia detection rates. Accuracy of allocation to surveillance endoscopy has been shown to hold cost savings, and a study of a dedicated clinic showed increased discharges from unnecessary surveillance. Training modalities for BO surveillance and dysplasia detection exist, which could be used to educate a BO workforce. Qualitative and quantitative studies have shown patients report high levels of cancer worry and poor disease-specific knowledge, but few studies have explored follow-up care models despite being a patient and clinician priority for research.

Conclusions

Cost–benefit analysis for dedicated services, considering both financial and environmental impacts, and more robust clinical data must be obtained to support this model of care in the wider health service. Greater understanding is needed of the root causes for poor guideline adherence, and disease-specific models of care should be designed around clinical and patient-reported outcomes to address the unmet needs of patients with BO.

Are we Missing Barrett's Esophagus in Our Busy Endoscopy Practice? Improving Detection

Barrett's esophagus (BE) denotes the replacement of stratified squamous epithelium of esophagus by columnar epithelium. It is associated with a significantly increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and hence patients with BE are advised endoscopic surveillance for early detection of dysplastic and neoplastic lesions. Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer in terms of incidence and mortality in India. Around 15 to 25% of esophageal cancers are adenocarcinoma. BE is likely to be an important precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma and we may be missing patients with BE in our busy endoscopy practice. The detection of BE may be improved by identifying high-risk groups, performing thorough endoscopic examination, and applying newer imaging techniques. The high-risk group includes patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, smoking, etc. During endoscopic examination, a careful assessment of the gastroesophageal junction and identification of important landmarks such as gastroesophageal junction and Z line are essential to detect BE. Management of BE depends on the detection of dysplasia and for this four quadrant mucosal biopsy is recommended every 1 to 2 cm. However, random biopsy samples only a small area of mucosa and advanced technologies for real-time detection of dysplasia and neoplasia may overcome this limitation. In this review, we discuss the current scenario of BE in India and ways to improve the detection of BE including dysplastic lesions.

Educational intervention to improve quality of care in Barrett's esophagus: the AQUIRE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite quality measures in upper endoscopy (EGD) for Barrett's esophagus (BE), considerable variability remains in practice among gastroenterologists. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the role of structured intensive training on the quality of EGD in BE.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 8 sites (from the GI Quality Consortium) were cluster randomized (1:1) to receive AQUIRE (A Quality Improvement program in cancer care during Endoscopy) training (intervention) or continue local standard practices (control). The primary outcome was compliance with the Seattle biopsy protocol. Secondary outcomes were change in knowledge of BE detection and sampling assessed by questionnaire and dysplasia detection rate (DDR) before and after completion of the 6-month study period.

RESULTS

The intervention sites (n = 4) had 31 gastroenterologists and the control sites (n = 4) had 34. There was a significant improvement in the compliance rates with the Seattle biopsy protocol from baseline to the end of the study in the intervention sites (64.8%-73.2%, P = .002) but not in the control sites (69.5%-69.4%, P = .953). The accurate response rate on the questionnaire at the intervention sites increased from 73% at baseline to 88% after AQUIRE training (difference, 14.8%; standard deviation, 18.7; P = .008). DDR did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months in either the control or intervention groups (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the capacity of a structured educational intervention to improve utilization of a standard biopsy protocol and knowledge of standards of care in BE but without significant change in DDR.