Endoscopy

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.

“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).

The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.

Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20). 

T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.

Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20). 

The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006). 

Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350. 

Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07). 

As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.

“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”

The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.

The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.

Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
 

A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.

“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).

The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.

Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20). 

T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.

Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20). 

The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006). 

Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350. 

Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07). 

As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.

“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”

The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.

The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.

Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
 

A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.

“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).

The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.

Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20). 

T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.

Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20). 

The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006). 

Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350. 

Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07). 

As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.

“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”

The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.

The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.

Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
 

Screening colonoscopies in 45- to 49-year-olds yield similar rates of cancer and lesions as in 50- to 54-year-olds, according to a new analysis.

Researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California sought to compare yields between the two age groups to assess how a change in guidance in 2021 urging screening in the younger cohort was borne out in a real-world setting.

The researchers published their findings in JAMA, concluding that the results supported screening colonoscopy in 45- to 49-year-olds.

The study compared 4380 individuals aged 45-49 years, with 7651 who were aged 50-54. All of them underwent their first colonoscopy during 2021 to 2024. Thirty-five percent of the younger group and 40% of the older group had any adenoma. 

About 4% of each group had an advanced adenoma, 10% had any sessile serrated lesion, a little under 2% had an advanced serrated lesion, and 0.1% in each group had colorectal cancer.

There were no significant differences in neoplasia prevalence between the groups by sex. The authors did note that the study group included more Asian individuals (30%) than in the general population.

Swati G. Patel, MD, MS, director of the Gastrointestinal Hereditary Cancer Program at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Denver, said the Kaiser study is important because its data was aggregated after the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the screening age in 2021.

The Kaiser research “validates the initial studies” done to support that recommendation and the 2022 consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which also advocated screening in 45- to 49-year-olds.

Even though the new JAMA study found a similar rate of cancers and precursor lesions as in previous trials, it provides “reinforcement of the rationale for decreasing the screening age,” Patel, the lead author on the consensus statement, told GI & Hepatology News.

The Kaiser research is “really powerful information,” she said.

“It certainly validates our current guidance to start screening for colorectal cancer at age 45,” said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the GI Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, New Hampshire.

The Kaiser data provides granular information to share with younger patients who might think that they don’t need screening because they are healthy and don’t have symptoms, said Calderwood, also director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

Colon cancer rates for Americans under age 50 have been steadily rising for the past decade, hitting about 10 cases per 100,000 in 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 2023, about 73% of eligible 50- to 75-year-olds received colorectal cancer screening based on the most recent guidelines, according to the NCI.

But screening rates in the under-50 age group are much lower. Researchers estimated in a study that only about 34.5% of those aged 45-49 received colorectal cancer screening, which included colonoscopy, stool-based tests, and CT colonography.

Patel said that estimate is “spot on” in terms of other estimates. 

“I think there’s a perception that it’s a cancer of older adults and that young healthy people don’t need to worry about it,” she said, adding that getting the word out to younger Americans is a “PR challenge,” in part because of squeamishness about discussing anything to do with stool and changes in how they access information.

Calderwood agreed. Younger people “aren’t chatting to their friends about” colon cancer screening the way they might about mammography, said Calderwood.

Both she and Patel noted that educating the public was an ongoing project, but that a physician’s recommendation was key.

Patel said she hoped that data provided in the Kaiser study might help “dismantle the systemic skepticism around decreasing the age recommendation” for screening.

Calderwood and Patel reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Screening colonoscopies in 45- to 49-year-olds yield similar rates of cancer and lesions as in 50- to 54-year-olds, according to a new analysis.

Researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California sought to compare yields between the two age groups to assess how a change in guidance in 2021 urging screening in the younger cohort was borne out in a real-world setting.

The researchers published their findings in JAMA, concluding that the results supported screening colonoscopy in 45- to 49-year-olds.

The study compared 4380 individuals aged 45-49 years, with 7651 who were aged 50-54. All of them underwent their first colonoscopy during 2021 to 2024. Thirty-five percent of the younger group and 40% of the older group had any adenoma. 

About 4% of each group had an advanced adenoma, 10% had any sessile serrated lesion, a little under 2% had an advanced serrated lesion, and 0.1% in each group had colorectal cancer.

There were no significant differences in neoplasia prevalence between the groups by sex. The authors did note that the study group included more Asian individuals (30%) than in the general population.

Swati G. Patel, MD, MS, director of the Gastrointestinal Hereditary Cancer Program at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Denver, said the Kaiser study is important because its data was aggregated after the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the screening age in 2021.

The Kaiser research “validates the initial studies” done to support that recommendation and the 2022 consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which also advocated screening in 45- to 49-year-olds.

Even though the new JAMA study found a similar rate of cancers and precursor lesions as in previous trials, it provides “reinforcement of the rationale for decreasing the screening age,” Patel, the lead author on the consensus statement, told GI & Hepatology News.

The Kaiser research is “really powerful information,” she said.

“It certainly validates our current guidance to start screening for colorectal cancer at age 45,” said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the GI Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, New Hampshire.

The Kaiser data provides granular information to share with younger patients who might think that they don’t need screening because they are healthy and don’t have symptoms, said Calderwood, also director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

Colon cancer rates for Americans under age 50 have been steadily rising for the past decade, hitting about 10 cases per 100,000 in 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 2023, about 73% of eligible 50- to 75-year-olds received colorectal cancer screening based on the most recent guidelines, according to the NCI.

But screening rates in the under-50 age group are much lower. Researchers estimated in a study that only about 34.5% of those aged 45-49 received colorectal cancer screening, which included colonoscopy, stool-based tests, and CT colonography.

Patel said that estimate is “spot on” in terms of other estimates. 

“I think there’s a perception that it’s a cancer of older adults and that young healthy people don’t need to worry about it,” she said, adding that getting the word out to younger Americans is a “PR challenge,” in part because of squeamishness about discussing anything to do with stool and changes in how they access information.

Calderwood agreed. Younger people “aren’t chatting to their friends about” colon cancer screening the way they might about mammography, said Calderwood.

Both she and Patel noted that educating the public was an ongoing project, but that a physician’s recommendation was key.

Patel said she hoped that data provided in the Kaiser study might help “dismantle the systemic skepticism around decreasing the age recommendation” for screening.

Calderwood and Patel reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Screening colonoscopies in 45- to 49-year-olds yield similar rates of cancer and lesions as in 50- to 54-year-olds, according to a new analysis.

Researchers at Kaiser Permanente Northern California sought to compare yields between the two age groups to assess how a change in guidance in 2021 urging screening in the younger cohort was borne out in a real-world setting.

The researchers published their findings in JAMA, concluding that the results supported screening colonoscopy in 45- to 49-year-olds.

The study compared 4380 individuals aged 45-49 years, with 7651 who were aged 50-54. All of them underwent their first colonoscopy during 2021 to 2024. Thirty-five percent of the younger group and 40% of the older group had any adenoma. 

About 4% of each group had an advanced adenoma, 10% had any sessile serrated lesion, a little under 2% had an advanced serrated lesion, and 0.1% in each group had colorectal cancer.

There were no significant differences in neoplasia prevalence between the groups by sex. The authors did note that the study group included more Asian individuals (30%) than in the general population.

Swati G. Patel, MD, MS, director of the Gastrointestinal Hereditary Cancer Program at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Denver, said the Kaiser study is important because its data was aggregated after the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered the screening age in 2021.

The Kaiser research “validates the initial studies” done to support that recommendation and the 2022 consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which also advocated screening in 45- to 49-year-olds.

Even though the new JAMA study found a similar rate of cancers and precursor lesions as in previous trials, it provides “reinforcement of the rationale for decreasing the screening age,” Patel, the lead author on the consensus statement, told GI & Hepatology News.

The Kaiser research is “really powerful information,” she said.

“It certainly validates our current guidance to start screening for colorectal cancer at age 45,” said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the GI Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, New Hampshire.

The Kaiser data provides granular information to share with younger patients who might think that they don’t need screening because they are healthy and don’t have symptoms, said Calderwood, also director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

Colon cancer rates for Americans under age 50 have been steadily rising for the past decade, hitting about 10 cases per 100,000 in 2022, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 2023, about 73% of eligible 50- to 75-year-olds received colorectal cancer screening based on the most recent guidelines, according to the NCI.

But screening rates in the under-50 age group are much lower. Researchers estimated in a study that only about 34.5% of those aged 45-49 received colorectal cancer screening, which included colonoscopy, stool-based tests, and CT colonography.

Patel said that estimate is “spot on” in terms of other estimates. 

“I think there’s a perception that it’s a cancer of older adults and that young healthy people don’t need to worry about it,” she said, adding that getting the word out to younger Americans is a “PR challenge,” in part because of squeamishness about discussing anything to do with stool and changes in how they access information.

Calderwood agreed. Younger people “aren’t chatting to their friends about” colon cancer screening the way they might about mammography, said Calderwood.

Both she and Patel noted that educating the public was an ongoing project, but that a physician’s recommendation was key.

Patel said she hoped that data provided in the Kaiser study might help “dismantle the systemic skepticism around decreasing the age recommendation” for screening.

Calderwood and Patel reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A real-time, blood-sensing capsule (PillSense) is a safe and effective diagnostic tool for patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding that can aid patient triage, reduce unnecessary procedures, and optimize resource use, a study found.

Notably, patients with negative capsule results had shorter hospital stays and lower acuity markers, and in more than one third of cases, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was avoided altogether without any observed adverse events or readmissions, the study team found.

“Our study shows that this novel capsule that detects blood in the upper GI tract (PillSense) was highly sensitive and specific (> 90%) for detecting recent or active upper GI blood, influenced clinical management in 80% of cases and allowed about one third of patients to be safely discharged from the emergency department, with close outpatient follow-up,” Linda Lee, MD, AGAF, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told GI & Hepatology News.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

 

Real-World Insights

EGD is the gold standard for diagnosing suspected upper GI bleeding, but limited access to timely EGD complicates diagnosis and resource allocation.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, PillSense (EnteraSense) is an ingestible capsule with a reusable receiver that provides a rapid, noninvasive method for detecting upper GI bleeding. The capsule analyzes light absorption to identify blood and transmits the result within 10 minutes.

Lee and colleagues evaluated the real-world impact of this point-of-care device on clinical triage and resource allocation, while assessing its safety profile.

They analyzed data on 43 patients (mean age 60 years; 72% men) with clinical suspicion of upper GI bleeding in whom the device was used. The most common symptoms were symptomatic anemia (70%), melena (67%), and hematemesis (33%).

Sixteen PillSense studies (37%) were positive for blood detection, and 27 (63%) were negative.

Compared to patients with a positive capsule results, those without blood detected by the capsule had shorter hospital stays (mean, 3.8 vs 13.4 days, P = .02), lower GBS scores (mean, 7.93 vs 12.81; P = .005), and fewer units of blood transfused (mean, 1.19 vs 10.94; P = .01) and were less apt to be hemodynamically unstable (5 vs 8 patients; P = .03).

Capsule results influenced clinical management in 80% of cases, leading to avoidance of EGD in 37% and prioritization of urgent EGD in 18% (all had active bleeding on EGD).

Capsule use improved resource allocation in 51% of cases. This included 12 patients who were discharged from the ED, six who were assigned an inpatient bed early, and four who underwent expedited colonoscopy as upper GI bleeding was ruled out, they noted.

Among the eight patients who did not undergo EGD, there were no readmissions within 30 days and no adverse events. There were no capsule-related adverse events.

“Clinicians should consider using this novel capsule PillSense as another data point in the management of suspected upper GI bleed,” Lee told GI & Hepatology News.

“This could include in helping to triage patients for safe discharge from the ED or to more urgent endoscopy, to differentiate between upper vs lower GI bleed and to manage ICU patients with possible rebleeding,” Lee said.

 

Important Real-World Evidence

Reached for comment, Shahin Ayazi, MD, esophageal surgeon, Director, Allegheny Health Network Chevalier Jackson Esophageal Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said this study is important for several reasons.

“Prior investigations have established that PillSense possesses a high negative predictive value for detecting upper GI bleeding and have speculated on its utility in triage, decision-making, and potentially avoiding unnecessary endoscopy. This study is important because it substantiates that speculation with clinical data,” Ayazi, who wasn’t involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News.

“These findings support the capsule’s practical application in patient stratification and clinical workflow, particularly when diagnostic uncertainty is high and endoscopic resources are limited,” Ayazi noted.

In his experience, PillSense is “highly useful as a triage adjunct in the evaluation of suspected upper GI bleeding. It provides direct and objective evidence as to whether blood is currently present in the stomach,” he said.

“In patients whose presentation is ambiguous or whose clinical scores fall into an intermediate risk zone, this binary result can provide clarity that subjective assessment alone may not achieve. This is particularly relevant in settings where the goal is to perform endoscopy within 24 hours, but the volume of consults exceeds procedural capacity,” Ayazi explained.

“In such scenarios, PillSense enables physicians to stratify patients based on objective evidence of active bleeding, helping to prioritize those who require urgent endoscopy and defer or even avoid endoscopic evaluation in those who do not. The result is a more efficient allocation of endoscopic resources without compromising patient safety,” he added.

Ayazi cautioned that the PillSense capsule should not be used as a replacement for clinical evaluation or established risk stratification protocols.

“It is intended for hemodynamically stable patients and has not been validated in cases of active or massive bleeding. Its diagnostic yield depends on the presence of blood in the stomach at the time of capsule transit; intermittent or proximal bleeding that has ceased may not be detected, introducing the potential for false-negative results,” Ayazi told GI & Hepatology News.

“However, in prior studies, the negative predictive value was high, and in the present study, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients who did not undergo endoscopy following a negative PillSense result,” Ayazi noted.

“It must also be understood that PillSense does not localize the source of bleeding or replace endoscopy in patients with a high likelihood of active hemorrhage. It is not designed to detect bleeding from the lower GI tract or distal small bowel. Rather, it serves as an adjunct that can provide immediate clarity when the need for endoscopy is uncertain, and should be interpreted within the broader context of clinical findings, laboratory data, and established risk stratification tools,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Lee and Ayazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO—Gastroenterologists have debated the best course of action for patients with Barrett’s esophagus for decades. Which is better for detecting early malignancy and preventing progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) — surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals or only when symptoms occur? Does one offer a better chance of survival than the other?

Now, researchers who conducted what they believe is the first randomized clinical trial comparing the two approaches say they have the answer.

Surveillance endoscopy every 2 years offers no benefit in terms of overall or cancer-specific survival, said Oliver Old, MD, a consultant upper-GI surgeon at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, England, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

At-need endoscopy may be a safe alternative for low-risk patients, the research team concluded.

 

The BOSS Trial

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy At Need Study (BOSS) ran from 2009 to 2024 at 109 centers in the UK, and 3452 patients with Barrett’s esophagus of 1 cm circumferential or a 2 cm noncircumferential tongue or island were followed for a minimum of 10 years.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsy every 2 years (the standard of care when the trial was set up) or endoscopy “at-need” when symptoms developed. Patients in the latter group were counseled about risk and were offered endoscopy for a range of alarm symptoms.

The study found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between the two groups. Over the study period, 333 of 1733 patients (19.2%) in the surveillance group died, as did 356 of 1719 patients (20.7%) in the at-need group.

Similarly, no statistically significant between-group difference was found in the risk for cancer-specific mortality. About 6.2% of patients died from cancer in both groups — 108 in the regular surveillance group and 106 in the at-need group.

Nor was there a statistically significant difference in diagnosis of EAC, with 40 regular surveillance patients (2.3%) and 31 at-need patients (1.8%) receiving the diagnosis over median follow-up of 12.8 years. Cancer stage at diagnosis did not differ significantly between groups.

“The really low rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma” was a key finding, Old said. The rate of progression to EAC was 0.23% per patient per year, he said.

Low- or high-grade dysplasia was detected in 10% of patients in the regular surveillance group, compared with 4% in the at-need group.

The mean interval between endoscopies was 22.9 months for the regular surveillance group and 31.5 months for the at-need group, and the median interval was 24.8 months and 25.7 months, respectively. The mean number of endoscopies was 3.5 in the regular surveillance group and 1.4 in the at-need group.

Eight patients in the regular surveillance group (0.46%) and seven in the at-need group (0.41%) reported serious adverse events.

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

Current surveillance practices “are based on pure observational data, and the question of whether surveillance EGD [esophagogastroduodenoscopy] impacts EAC diagnosis and mortality has been ongoing,” said Margaret Zhou, MD, MS, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. A randomized clinical trial on the subject has been needed for years, she added.

However, Zhou said, “In my opinion, this study does not end the debate and will not change my practice of doing surveillance endoscopy on NDBE [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus], which I typically perform every 3-5 years, based on current guidelines.”

The American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice guideline, issued in June 2024, addresses surveillance and focuses on a patient-centered approach when deciding on treatment or surveillance.

Patients in the at-need endoscopy arm underwent endoscopy almost as frequently as the patients randomly assigned to regular surveillance, at a median interval of about 2 years, Zhou noted. Therefore, she said, “It’s difficult to conclude from this study that surveillance endoscopy has no impact.”

Additionally, the study was underpowered to detect a difference in all-cause mortality and assumed a progression rate for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus that is higher than the current understanding, Zhou said. “It also did not address the important question of EAC-related mortality, which would be an important outcome to be able to assess whether surveillance EGD has an impact,” she said.

Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, MSc, AGAF, director of the Barrett’s Esophagus Program and professor in the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study doesn’t answer the pressing question of whether surveillance works.

While Rubenstein said he would not tell colleagues or patients to stop routine surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus on the basis of these results, “it is a reminder that we should be circumspect in who we label as having Barrett’s esophagus, and we should be more proactive in discussing discontinuation of surveillance in patients based on advancing age and comorbidities.”

The study was funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Zhou is a consultant for CapsoVision and Neptune Medical. Rubenstein has received research funding from Lucid Diagnostics. Old reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO—Gastroenterologists have debated the best course of action for patients with Barrett’s esophagus for decades. Which is better for detecting early malignancy and preventing progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) — surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals or only when symptoms occur? Does one offer a better chance of survival than the other?

Now, researchers who conducted what they believe is the first randomized clinical trial comparing the two approaches say they have the answer.

Surveillance endoscopy every 2 years offers no benefit in terms of overall or cancer-specific survival, said Oliver Old, MD, a consultant upper-GI surgeon at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, England, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

At-need endoscopy may be a safe alternative for low-risk patients, the research team concluded.

 

The BOSS Trial

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy At Need Study (BOSS) ran from 2009 to 2024 at 109 centers in the UK, and 3452 patients with Barrett’s esophagus of 1 cm circumferential or a 2 cm noncircumferential tongue or island were followed for a minimum of 10 years.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsy every 2 years (the standard of care when the trial was set up) or endoscopy “at-need” when symptoms developed. Patients in the latter group were counseled about risk and were offered endoscopy for a range of alarm symptoms.

The study found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between the two groups. Over the study period, 333 of 1733 patients (19.2%) in the surveillance group died, as did 356 of 1719 patients (20.7%) in the at-need group.

Similarly, no statistically significant between-group difference was found in the risk for cancer-specific mortality. About 6.2% of patients died from cancer in both groups — 108 in the regular surveillance group and 106 in the at-need group.

Nor was there a statistically significant difference in diagnosis of EAC, with 40 regular surveillance patients (2.3%) and 31 at-need patients (1.8%) receiving the diagnosis over median follow-up of 12.8 years. Cancer stage at diagnosis did not differ significantly between groups.

“The really low rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma” was a key finding, Old said. The rate of progression to EAC was 0.23% per patient per year, he said.

Low- or high-grade dysplasia was detected in 10% of patients in the regular surveillance group, compared with 4% in the at-need group.

The mean interval between endoscopies was 22.9 months for the regular surveillance group and 31.5 months for the at-need group, and the median interval was 24.8 months and 25.7 months, respectively. The mean number of endoscopies was 3.5 in the regular surveillance group and 1.4 in the at-need group.

Eight patients in the regular surveillance group (0.46%) and seven in the at-need group (0.41%) reported serious adverse events.

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

Current surveillance practices “are based on pure observational data, and the question of whether surveillance EGD [esophagogastroduodenoscopy] impacts EAC diagnosis and mortality has been ongoing,” said Margaret Zhou, MD, MS, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. A randomized clinical trial on the subject has been needed for years, she added.

However, Zhou said, “In my opinion, this study does not end the debate and will not change my practice of doing surveillance endoscopy on NDBE [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus], which I typically perform every 3-5 years, based on current guidelines.”

The American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice guideline, issued in June 2024, addresses surveillance and focuses on a patient-centered approach when deciding on treatment or surveillance.

Patients in the at-need endoscopy arm underwent endoscopy almost as frequently as the patients randomly assigned to regular surveillance, at a median interval of about 2 years, Zhou noted. Therefore, she said, “It’s difficult to conclude from this study that surveillance endoscopy has no impact.”

Additionally, the study was underpowered to detect a difference in all-cause mortality and assumed a progression rate for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus that is higher than the current understanding, Zhou said. “It also did not address the important question of EAC-related mortality, which would be an important outcome to be able to assess whether surveillance EGD has an impact,” she said.

Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, MSc, AGAF, director of the Barrett’s Esophagus Program and professor in the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study doesn’t answer the pressing question of whether surveillance works.

While Rubenstein said he would not tell colleagues or patients to stop routine surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus on the basis of these results, “it is a reminder that we should be circumspect in who we label as having Barrett’s esophagus, and we should be more proactive in discussing discontinuation of surveillance in patients based on advancing age and comorbidities.”

The study was funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Zhou is a consultant for CapsoVision and Neptune Medical. Rubenstein has received research funding from Lucid Diagnostics. Old reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO—Gastroenterologists have debated the best course of action for patients with Barrett’s esophagus for decades. Which is better for detecting early malignancy and preventing progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) — surveillance endoscopy at regular intervals or only when symptoms occur? Does one offer a better chance of survival than the other?

Now, researchers who conducted what they believe is the first randomized clinical trial comparing the two approaches say they have the answer.

Surveillance endoscopy every 2 years offers no benefit in terms of overall or cancer-specific survival, said Oliver Old, MD, a consultant upper-GI surgeon at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, England, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

At-need endoscopy may be a safe alternative for low-risk patients, the research team concluded.

 

The BOSS Trial

The Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Versus Endoscopy At Need Study (BOSS) ran from 2009 to 2024 at 109 centers in the UK, and 3452 patients with Barrett’s esophagus of 1 cm circumferential or a 2 cm noncircumferential tongue or island were followed for a minimum of 10 years.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsy every 2 years (the standard of care when the trial was set up) or endoscopy “at-need” when symptoms developed. Patients in the latter group were counseled about risk and were offered endoscopy for a range of alarm symptoms.

The study found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between the two groups. Over the study period, 333 of 1733 patients (19.2%) in the surveillance group died, as did 356 of 1719 patients (20.7%) in the at-need group.

Similarly, no statistically significant between-group difference was found in the risk for cancer-specific mortality. About 6.2% of patients died from cancer in both groups — 108 in the regular surveillance group and 106 in the at-need group.

Nor was there a statistically significant difference in diagnosis of EAC, with 40 regular surveillance patients (2.3%) and 31 at-need patients (1.8%) receiving the diagnosis over median follow-up of 12.8 years. Cancer stage at diagnosis did not differ significantly between groups.

“The really low rate of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma” was a key finding, Old said. The rate of progression to EAC was 0.23% per patient per year, he said.

Low- or high-grade dysplasia was detected in 10% of patients in the regular surveillance group, compared with 4% in the at-need group.

The mean interval between endoscopies was 22.9 months for the regular surveillance group and 31.5 months for the at-need group, and the median interval was 24.8 months and 25.7 months, respectively. The mean number of endoscopies was 3.5 in the regular surveillance group and 1.4 in the at-need group.

Eight patients in the regular surveillance group (0.46%) and seven in the at-need group (0.41%) reported serious adverse events.

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

Current surveillance practices “are based on pure observational data, and the question of whether surveillance EGD [esophagogastroduodenoscopy] impacts EAC diagnosis and mortality has been ongoing,” said Margaret Zhou, MD, MS, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. A randomized clinical trial on the subject has been needed for years, she added.

However, Zhou said, “In my opinion, this study does not end the debate and will not change my practice of doing surveillance endoscopy on NDBE [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus], which I typically perform every 3-5 years, based on current guidelines.”

The American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice guideline, issued in June 2024, addresses surveillance and focuses on a patient-centered approach when deciding on treatment or surveillance.

Patients in the at-need endoscopy arm underwent endoscopy almost as frequently as the patients randomly assigned to regular surveillance, at a median interval of about 2 years, Zhou noted. Therefore, she said, “It’s difficult to conclude from this study that surveillance endoscopy has no impact.”

Additionally, the study was underpowered to detect a difference in all-cause mortality and assumed a progression rate for nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus that is higher than the current understanding, Zhou said. “It also did not address the important question of EAC-related mortality, which would be an important outcome to be able to assess whether surveillance EGD has an impact,” she said.

Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, MSc, AGAF, director of the Barrett’s Esophagus Program and professor in the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study doesn’t answer the pressing question of whether surveillance works.

While Rubenstein said he would not tell colleagues or patients to stop routine surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus on the basis of these results, “it is a reminder that we should be circumspect in who we label as having Barrett’s esophagus, and we should be more proactive in discussing discontinuation of surveillance in patients based on advancing age and comorbidities.”

The study was funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Zhou is a consultant for CapsoVision and Neptune Medical. Rubenstein has received research funding from Lucid Diagnostics. Old reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) that emerge following a negative colonoscopy and polypectomy occur prior to recommended surveillance exams, and those cases are more likely to be at an advanced stage, according to new research.

Of key factors linked to a higher risk for such cases, one stands out — the quality of the baseline colonoscopy procedure.

“A lot of the neoplasia that we see after polypectomy was probably either missed or incompletely resected at baseline,” said Samir Gupta, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, California, in discussing the topic at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2025.

“Therefore, what is key to emphasize is that [colonoscopy] quality is probably the most important factor in post-polypectomy risk,” he said. “But, advantageously, it’s also the most modifiable factor.”

Research shows that the risk for CRC incidence following a colonoscopy ranges from just about 3.4 to 5 cases per 10,000 person-years when baseline findings show no adenoma or a low risk; however, higher rates ranging from 13.8 to 20.9 cases per 10,000 person-years are observed for high-risk adenomas or serrated polyps, Gupta reported.

“Compared with those who have normal colonoscopy, the risk [for CRC] with high-risk adenomas is increased by nearly threefold,” Gupta said.

In a recent study of US veterans who underwent a colonoscopy with polypectomy between 1999 and 2016 that was labeled negative for cancer, Gupta and his colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 3.9 years, as many as 55% of 396 CRCs that occurred post-polypectomy were detected prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy.

The study also showed that 40% of post-polypectomy CRC deaths occurred prior to the recommended surveillance exam over a median follow-up of 4.2 years.

Cancers detected prior to the recommended surveillance exam were more likely to be diagnosed as stage IV compared with those diagnosed later (16% prior to recommended surveillance vs 2.1% and 8.3% during and after, respectively; P = .003).

Importantly, the most prominent reason for the cancers emerging in the interval before follow-up surveillance was missed lesions during the baseline colonoscopy (60%), Gupta said.

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

A larger study of 173,288 colonoscopies further underscores colonoscopist skill as a key factor in post-polypectomy CRC, showing that colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality — defined as an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of either < 20% vs ≥ 20% — had higher 10-year cumulative rates of CRC incidence among patients following a negative colonoscopy (P < .001).

Likewise, in another analysis of low-risk vs high-risk polyps, a higher colonoscopist performance status was significantly associated with lower rates of CRCs (P < .001).

“Higher colonoscopist performance was associated with a lower cumulative colorectal cancer risk within each [polyp risk] group, such that the cumulative risk after high-risk adenoma removal by a higher performing colonoscopist is similar to that in patients who had a low-risk adenoma removed by a lower performer,” Gupta explained.

“So, this has nothing to do with the type of polyp that was removed — it really has to do with the quality of the colonoscopist,” he said.

The American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Task Force recently updated recommended benchmarks for colonoscopists for detecting polyps, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, AGAF, director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in further discussing the issue in the session.

They recommend an ADR of 35% overall, with the recommended benchmark being ≥ 40% for men aged 45 years or older and ≥ 30% for women aged 45 years or older, with a rate of 50% for patients aged 45 years or older with an abnormal stool test, Shaukat explained.

And “these are minimum benchmarks,” she said. “Multiple studies suggest that, in fact, the reported rates are much higher.”

Among key strategies for detecting elusive adenomas is the need to slow down withdrawal time during the colonoscopy in order to take as close a look as possible, Shaukat emphasized.

She noted research that her team has published showing that physicians’ shorter withdrawal times were in fact inversely associated with an increased risk for cancers occurring prior to the recommended surveillance (P < .0001).

“Multiple studies have shown it isn’t just the time but the technique with withdrawal,” she added, underscoring the need to flatten as much of the mucosa and folds as possible during the withdrawal. “It’s important to perfect our technique.”

Sessile serrated lesions, with often subtle and indistinct borders, can be among the most difficult polyps to remove, Shaukat noted. Studies have shown that as many as 31% of sessile serrated lesions are incompletely resected, compared with about 7% of tubular adenomas.

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

In addition to physician-related factors, patients themselves can also play a role in post-polypectomy cancer risk — specifically in not complying with surveillance recommendations, with reasons ranging from cost to the invasiveness and burden of undergoing a surveillance colonoscopy.

“Colonoscopies are expensive, and participation is suboptimal,” Gupta said.

One study of high-risk patients with adenoma shows that only 64% received surveillance, and many who did receive surveillance received it late, he noted.

This underscores the need for better prevention as well as follow-up strategies, he added.

Recommendations for surveillance exams from the World Endoscopy Organization range from every 3 to 10 years for patients with polyps, depending on the number, size, and type of polyps, to every 10 years for those with normal colonoscopies and no polyps.

A key potential solution to improve patient monitoring within those periods is the use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which are noninvasive, substantially less burdensome alternatives to colonoscopies, which check for blood in the stool, Gupta said.

While the tests can’t replace the gold standard of colonoscopies, the tests nevertheless can play an important role in monitoring patients, he said.

Evidence supporting their benefits includes a recent important study of 2226 patients who underwent either post-polypectomy colonoscopy, FIT (either with FOB Gold or OC-Sensor), or FIT-fecal DNA (Cologuard) test, he noted.

The results showed that the OC-Sensor FIT had a 71% sensitivity, and FIT-fecal DNA had a sensitivity of 86% in the detection of CRC.

Importantly, the study found that a positive FIT result prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy reduced the time-to-diagnosis for CRC and advanced adenoma by a median of 30 and 20 months, respectively.

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

“The predictive models and these noninvasive tests are likely better than current guidelines for predicting who has metachronous advanced neoplasia or colon cancer,” Gupta said.

“For this reason, I really think that these alternatives have a potentially major advantage in reducing colonoscopy burdens. These alternatives are worthwhile of studying, and we really do need to consider them,” he said.

More broadly, the collective evidence points to factors that can and should be addressed with a proactive diligence, Gupta noted.

“We need to be able to shift from using guidelines that are just based on the number, size, and histology of polyps to a scenario where we’re doing very high-quality colonoscopies with excellent ADR rates and complete polyp excision,” Gupta said.

Furthermore, “the use of tools for more precise risk stratification could result in a big, low-risk group that could just require 10-year colonoscopy surveillance or maybe even periodic noninvasive surveillance, and a much smaller high-risk group that we could really focus our attention on, doing surveillance colonoscopy every 3-5 years or maybe even intense noninvasive surveillance.”

Gupta’s disclosures included relationships with Guardant Health, Universal DX, CellMax, and Geneoscopy. Shaukat’s disclosures included relationships with Iterative Health and Freenome.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) that emerge following a negative colonoscopy and polypectomy occur prior to recommended surveillance exams, and those cases are more likely to be at an advanced stage, according to new research.

Of key factors linked to a higher risk for such cases, one stands out — the quality of the baseline colonoscopy procedure.

“A lot of the neoplasia that we see after polypectomy was probably either missed or incompletely resected at baseline,” said Samir Gupta, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, California, in discussing the topic at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2025.

“Therefore, what is key to emphasize is that [colonoscopy] quality is probably the most important factor in post-polypectomy risk,” he said. “But, advantageously, it’s also the most modifiable factor.”

Research shows that the risk for CRC incidence following a colonoscopy ranges from just about 3.4 to 5 cases per 10,000 person-years when baseline findings show no adenoma or a low risk; however, higher rates ranging from 13.8 to 20.9 cases per 10,000 person-years are observed for high-risk adenomas or serrated polyps, Gupta reported.

“Compared with those who have normal colonoscopy, the risk [for CRC] with high-risk adenomas is increased by nearly threefold,” Gupta said.

In a recent study of US veterans who underwent a colonoscopy with polypectomy between 1999 and 2016 that was labeled negative for cancer, Gupta and his colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 3.9 years, as many as 55% of 396 CRCs that occurred post-polypectomy were detected prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy.

The study also showed that 40% of post-polypectomy CRC deaths occurred prior to the recommended surveillance exam over a median follow-up of 4.2 years.

Cancers detected prior to the recommended surveillance exam were more likely to be diagnosed as stage IV compared with those diagnosed later (16% prior to recommended surveillance vs 2.1% and 8.3% during and after, respectively; P = .003).

Importantly, the most prominent reason for the cancers emerging in the interval before follow-up surveillance was missed lesions during the baseline colonoscopy (60%), Gupta said.

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

A larger study of 173,288 colonoscopies further underscores colonoscopist skill as a key factor in post-polypectomy CRC, showing that colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality — defined as an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of either < 20% vs ≥ 20% — had higher 10-year cumulative rates of CRC incidence among patients following a negative colonoscopy (P < .001).

Likewise, in another analysis of low-risk vs high-risk polyps, a higher colonoscopist performance status was significantly associated with lower rates of CRCs (P < .001).

“Higher colonoscopist performance was associated with a lower cumulative colorectal cancer risk within each [polyp risk] group, such that the cumulative risk after high-risk adenoma removal by a higher performing colonoscopist is similar to that in patients who had a low-risk adenoma removed by a lower performer,” Gupta explained.

“So, this has nothing to do with the type of polyp that was removed — it really has to do with the quality of the colonoscopist,” he said.

The American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Task Force recently updated recommended benchmarks for colonoscopists for detecting polyps, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, AGAF, director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in further discussing the issue in the session.

They recommend an ADR of 35% overall, with the recommended benchmark being ≥ 40% for men aged 45 years or older and ≥ 30% for women aged 45 years or older, with a rate of 50% for patients aged 45 years or older with an abnormal stool test, Shaukat explained.

And “these are minimum benchmarks,” she said. “Multiple studies suggest that, in fact, the reported rates are much higher.”

Among key strategies for detecting elusive adenomas is the need to slow down withdrawal time during the colonoscopy in order to take as close a look as possible, Shaukat emphasized.

She noted research that her team has published showing that physicians’ shorter withdrawal times were in fact inversely associated with an increased risk for cancers occurring prior to the recommended surveillance (P < .0001).

“Multiple studies have shown it isn’t just the time but the technique with withdrawal,” she added, underscoring the need to flatten as much of the mucosa and folds as possible during the withdrawal. “It’s important to perfect our technique.”

Sessile serrated lesions, with often subtle and indistinct borders, can be among the most difficult polyps to remove, Shaukat noted. Studies have shown that as many as 31% of sessile serrated lesions are incompletely resected, compared with about 7% of tubular adenomas.

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

In addition to physician-related factors, patients themselves can also play a role in post-polypectomy cancer risk — specifically in not complying with surveillance recommendations, with reasons ranging from cost to the invasiveness and burden of undergoing a surveillance colonoscopy.

“Colonoscopies are expensive, and participation is suboptimal,” Gupta said.

One study of high-risk patients with adenoma shows that only 64% received surveillance, and many who did receive surveillance received it late, he noted.

This underscores the need for better prevention as well as follow-up strategies, he added.

Recommendations for surveillance exams from the World Endoscopy Organization range from every 3 to 10 years for patients with polyps, depending on the number, size, and type of polyps, to every 10 years for those with normal colonoscopies and no polyps.

A key potential solution to improve patient monitoring within those periods is the use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which are noninvasive, substantially less burdensome alternatives to colonoscopies, which check for blood in the stool, Gupta said.

While the tests can’t replace the gold standard of colonoscopies, the tests nevertheless can play an important role in monitoring patients, he said.

Evidence supporting their benefits includes a recent important study of 2226 patients who underwent either post-polypectomy colonoscopy, FIT (either with FOB Gold or OC-Sensor), or FIT-fecal DNA (Cologuard) test, he noted.

The results showed that the OC-Sensor FIT had a 71% sensitivity, and FIT-fecal DNA had a sensitivity of 86% in the detection of CRC.

Importantly, the study found that a positive FIT result prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy reduced the time-to-diagnosis for CRC and advanced adenoma by a median of 30 and 20 months, respectively.

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

“The predictive models and these noninvasive tests are likely better than current guidelines for predicting who has metachronous advanced neoplasia or colon cancer,” Gupta said.

“For this reason, I really think that these alternatives have a potentially major advantage in reducing colonoscopy burdens. These alternatives are worthwhile of studying, and we really do need to consider them,” he said.

More broadly, the collective evidence points to factors that can and should be addressed with a proactive diligence, Gupta noted.

“We need to be able to shift from using guidelines that are just based on the number, size, and histology of polyps to a scenario where we’re doing very high-quality colonoscopies with excellent ADR rates and complete polyp excision,” Gupta said.

Furthermore, “the use of tools for more precise risk stratification could result in a big, low-risk group that could just require 10-year colonoscopy surveillance or maybe even periodic noninvasive surveillance, and a much smaller high-risk group that we could really focus our attention on, doing surveillance colonoscopy every 3-5 years or maybe even intense noninvasive surveillance.”

Gupta’s disclosures included relationships with Guardant Health, Universal DX, CellMax, and Geneoscopy. Shaukat’s disclosures included relationships with Iterative Health and Freenome.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The majority of colorectal cancers (CRCs) that emerge following a negative colonoscopy and polypectomy occur prior to recommended surveillance exams, and those cases are more likely to be at an advanced stage, according to new research.

Of key factors linked to a higher risk for such cases, one stands out — the quality of the baseline colonoscopy procedure.

“A lot of the neoplasia that we see after polypectomy was probably either missed or incompletely resected at baseline,” said Samir Gupta, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, California, in discussing the topic at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2025.

“Therefore, what is key to emphasize is that [colonoscopy] quality is probably the most important factor in post-polypectomy risk,” he said. “But, advantageously, it’s also the most modifiable factor.”

Research shows that the risk for CRC incidence following a colonoscopy ranges from just about 3.4 to 5 cases per 10,000 person-years when baseline findings show no adenoma or a low risk; however, higher rates ranging from 13.8 to 20.9 cases per 10,000 person-years are observed for high-risk adenomas or serrated polyps, Gupta reported.

“Compared with those who have normal colonoscopy, the risk [for CRC] with high-risk adenomas is increased by nearly threefold,” Gupta said.

In a recent study of US veterans who underwent a colonoscopy with polypectomy between 1999 and 2016 that was labeled negative for cancer, Gupta and his colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 3.9 years, as many as 55% of 396 CRCs that occurred post-polypectomy were detected prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy.

The study also showed that 40% of post-polypectomy CRC deaths occurred prior to the recommended surveillance exam over a median follow-up of 4.2 years.

Cancers detected prior to the recommended surveillance exam were more likely to be diagnosed as stage IV compared with those diagnosed later (16% prior to recommended surveillance vs 2.1% and 8.3% during and after, respectively; P = .003).

Importantly, the most prominent reason for the cancers emerging in the interval before follow-up surveillance was missed lesions during the baseline colonoscopy (60%), Gupta said.

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

A larger study of 173,288 colonoscopies further underscores colonoscopist skill as a key factor in post-polypectomy CRC, showing that colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality — defined as an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of either < 20% vs ≥ 20% — had higher 10-year cumulative rates of CRC incidence among patients following a negative colonoscopy (P < .001).

Likewise, in another analysis of low-risk vs high-risk polyps, a higher colonoscopist performance status was significantly associated with lower rates of CRCs (P < .001).

“Higher colonoscopist performance was associated with a lower cumulative colorectal cancer risk within each [polyp risk] group, such that the cumulative risk after high-risk adenoma removal by a higher performing colonoscopist is similar to that in patients who had a low-risk adenoma removed by a lower performer,” Gupta explained.

“So, this has nothing to do with the type of polyp that was removed — it really has to do with the quality of the colonoscopist,” he said.

The American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Task Force recently updated recommended benchmarks for colonoscopists for detecting polyps, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, AGAF, director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, in further discussing the issue in the session.

They recommend an ADR of 35% overall, with the recommended benchmark being ≥ 40% for men aged 45 years or older and ≥ 30% for women aged 45 years or older, with a rate of 50% for patients aged 45 years or older with an abnormal stool test, Shaukat explained.

And “these are minimum benchmarks,” she said. “Multiple studies suggest that, in fact, the reported rates are much higher.”

Among key strategies for detecting elusive adenomas is the need to slow down withdrawal time during the colonoscopy in order to take as close a look as possible, Shaukat emphasized.

She noted research that her team has published showing that physicians’ shorter withdrawal times were in fact inversely associated with an increased risk for cancers occurring prior to the recommended surveillance (P < .0001).

“Multiple studies have shown it isn’t just the time but the technique with withdrawal,” she added, underscoring the need to flatten as much of the mucosa and folds as possible during the withdrawal. “It’s important to perfect our technique.”

Sessile serrated lesions, with often subtle and indistinct borders, can be among the most difficult polyps to remove, Shaukat noted. Studies have shown that as many as 31% of sessile serrated lesions are incompletely resected, compared with about 7% of tubular adenomas.

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

In addition to physician-related factors, patients themselves can also play a role in post-polypectomy cancer risk — specifically in not complying with surveillance recommendations, with reasons ranging from cost to the invasiveness and burden of undergoing a surveillance colonoscopy.

“Colonoscopies are expensive, and participation is suboptimal,” Gupta said.

One study of high-risk patients with adenoma shows that only 64% received surveillance, and many who did receive surveillance received it late, he noted.

This underscores the need for better prevention as well as follow-up strategies, he added.

Recommendations for surveillance exams from the World Endoscopy Organization range from every 3 to 10 years for patients with polyps, depending on the number, size, and type of polyps, to every 10 years for those with normal colonoscopies and no polyps.

A key potential solution to improve patient monitoring within those periods is the use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which are noninvasive, substantially less burdensome alternatives to colonoscopies, which check for blood in the stool, Gupta said.

While the tests can’t replace the gold standard of colonoscopies, the tests nevertheless can play an important role in monitoring patients, he said.

Evidence supporting their benefits includes a recent important study of 2226 patients who underwent either post-polypectomy colonoscopy, FIT (either with FOB Gold or OC-Sensor), or FIT-fecal DNA (Cologuard) test, he noted.

The results showed that the OC-Sensor FIT had a 71% sensitivity, and FIT-fecal DNA had a sensitivity of 86% in the detection of CRC.

Importantly, the study found that a positive FIT result prior to the recommended surveillance colonoscopy reduced the time-to-diagnosis for CRC and advanced adenoma by a median of 30 and 20 months, respectively.

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

“The predictive models and these noninvasive tests are likely better than current guidelines for predicting who has metachronous advanced neoplasia or colon cancer,” Gupta said.

“For this reason, I really think that these alternatives have a potentially major advantage in reducing colonoscopy burdens. These alternatives are worthwhile of studying, and we really do need to consider them,” he said.

More broadly, the collective evidence points to factors that can and should be addressed with a proactive diligence, Gupta noted.

“We need to be able to shift from using guidelines that are just based on the number, size, and histology of polyps to a scenario where we’re doing very high-quality colonoscopies with excellent ADR rates and complete polyp excision,” Gupta said.

Furthermore, “the use of tools for more precise risk stratification could result in a big, low-risk group that could just require 10-year colonoscopy surveillance or maybe even periodic noninvasive surveillance, and a much smaller high-risk group that we could really focus our attention on, doing surveillance colonoscopy every 3-5 years or maybe even intense noninvasive surveillance.”

Gupta’s disclosures included relationships with Guardant Health, Universal DX, CellMax, and Geneoscopy. Shaukat’s disclosures included relationships with Iterative Health and Freenome.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Advanced practice providers (APPs) can be trained to perform transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with a single-use ultra-slim gastroscope with only topical anesthesia, a pilot study showed.

“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.

The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.

Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.

Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.

TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).

Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.

Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.

Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.

All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.

The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.

TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.

The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.

“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Caveats and Cautionary Notes

Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”

Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.

“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.

“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.

The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Advanced practice providers (APPs) can be trained to perform transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with a single-use ultra-slim gastroscope with only topical anesthesia, a pilot study showed.

“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.

The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.

Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.

Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.

TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).

Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.

Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.

Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.

All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.

The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.

TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.

The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.

“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Caveats and Cautionary Notes

Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”

Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.

“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.

“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.

The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Advanced practice providers (APPs) can be trained to perform transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with a single-use ultra-slim gastroscope with only topical anesthesia, a pilot study showed.

“Our study showed that TNE can be performed safely by APPs, is well tolerated by patients, and significantly impacted patient management,” Whitney Kucher, PA-C, with Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, told GI & Hepatology News.

“The chief benefit of having APPs perform TNEs is increasing patient access and expediting management of upper GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms in patients,” said Kucher who presented the study at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

The EvoEndo single-use endoscopy system received 510(k) clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in early 2022.

The system includes a sterile, single-use, flexible gastroscope designed for unsedated transnasal upper endoscopy and a small portable video controller.

Unsedated TNE can be used to evaluate and diagnose a wide range of upper GI conditions that may require frequent monitoring, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), dysphagia, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), malabsorption, and abdominal pain.

Kucher and colleagues assessed the ability for APPs to use the EvoEndo system to perform safe and accurate esophageal assessment using in-office TNE, following training.

TNE training lasted about 4 weeks and consisted of a stepwise approach involving lectures, simulation-based training, and hands-on supervised TNEs (10 per APP).

Once training was completed, and after providing consent, 25 patients were enrolled to undergo supervised TNE by an APP. Their mean age was 55 years, and 58% were women.

Indications for TNE were uncontrolled GERD symptoms in 12 patients, history of EoE in six patients, high-risk screening for BE in five patients, and dysphagia in two patients.

Technical success was achieved in all but one patient (96%), and there were no adverse events.

All 25 patients completed the procedure, with 17 (72%) giving it a TNEase score of 1 (with ease/no discomfort) or 2 (mild/occasional discomfort). Only two patients reported a score of 4 (very uncomfortable) but still completed the exam.

The average TNE procedure time was 7.3 minutes.

TNE findings changed management in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The test led to a change in proton pump inhibitor dosing or interval in 14 patients (56%). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) interval was extended in five patients (20%) and scheduled sooner in three patients (12%). Two patients (8%) had no change in management.

The study team said more data are needed in terms of learning curves, competency metrics, and health economics before widespread adoption can be supported.

“We are working on developing a standardized training plan so we can train more GI APPs in our department. We have plans to start an APP-driven TNE program in the coming months,” Kucher told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Caveats and Cautionary Notes

Commenting on this study for GI & Hepatology News, Amitabh Chak, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, both in Cleveland, noted that the results are “similar to older studies where TNE appeared quite promising and APPs could be trained. There have been previous studies that APPs can perform colonoscopies and EGDs.”

Chak cautioned that previous studies showed that it took at least 50 supervised examinations for APPs to achieve the needed skills.

“Intubation transnasally can be painful for patients if not done with skill. Cognitive skills take longer. The gastroesophageal junction is dynamic, and recognition of subtle pathology takes training,” Chak noted.

“TNE has been around at least two decades. The challenge with uptake of TNE for Barrett’s screening has been acceptance by primary care physicians, patients and payers,” Chak told GI & Hepatology News.

The study had no specific funding. Kucher reported having no relevant disclosures. Chak reported having relationships with US Endoscopy, Lucid Diagnostics, Steris Endoscopy/US Endoscopy, Microtek, and Interpace Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.