User login
Prevention and Risk-Based Surveillance Key to Curbing HCC
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM UEG WEEK 2025
Oral Microbes Tied to Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Getting Ahead of Gastrointestinal Cancer
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is AI Use Causing Endoscopists to Lose Their Skills?
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat Intubation of the Sigmoid Colon Improves Adenoma Detection
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“After eliminating the impact of time, the adenoma-detection rate [with a second intubation vs standard withdrawal] was still significantly increased, indicating that the second intubation technique could enhance the visualization of the sigmoid colon mucosa and reduce the rate of missed lesions,” reported the authors of the study, published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
When precancerous polyps are removed during standard colonoscopies, as many as 70%-90% of colorectal cancers can be prevented; however, rates of missed polyps during colonoscopy are notoriously high.
Recent studies have shown improved adenoma-detection rates with the use of Endocuff, water-assisted colonoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy, and repeat withdrawal examinations, which include retroflexion and forward-viewing methods.
The repeat colonoscopy examinations may represent “the easiest and most practical option for endoscopists as they do not require additional tools, staff, or funding,” the authors explained.
However, most studies on the issue have focused mainly on the right colon and forward-viewing examinations, whereas the sigmoid colon, which has the most turns and is the most easily compressed, can be easily missed during withdrawal observation.
To investigate if use of a second colon intubation of the sigmoid colon could improve detection rates, senior author Jianning Yao, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, conducted a randomized trial, enrolling 650 patients between December 2023 and April 2024 who were aged 45 or older and had overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 24).
At the time of the first withdrawal during the colonoscopy, the patients were randomized 1:1 to groups of 325 each to either receive standard withdrawal, with withdrawal to the anus, or to receive a second intubation, with reinsertion into the sigmoid colon.
In the second intubation, the colonoscope was pushed forward without straightening, “allowing for slight looping that could be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument was advanced,” they explained.
The patients had a mean age of 55; about 25% had a smoking habit, and the mean BMI was about 28. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics.
The results showed that patients in the second-intubation group vs standard-withdrawal group had a substantially higher adenoma-detection rate (24.3% vs 14.5%) and polyp-detection rate (29.2% vs 17.8%, P = .001 for both) in the sigmoid colon.
In the second-intubation group, 85% of the adenomas discovered throughout the second inspection in the sigmoid colon were 5 mm or smaller in size. In addition, 90% of the 40 adenomas were somewhat raised or pedunculated, and all were tubular adenomas.
No high-grade dysplasia adenomas were discovered.
Of note, the colonoscopy in the second-intubation group’s colonoscopic examinations took just 1.47 minute longer overall than the standard-withdrawal group’s examinations.
Factors that were determined in a multivariate analysis to be independent predictors of higher adenoma detection in the second-intubation group included older age, smoking habit, longer duration of the second inspection, and the identification of lesions during the initial withdrawal from the sigmoid colon.
Patients’ vital signs were monitored at intervals of 3 minutes throughout the colonoscopy procedure, and patients were followed up to monitor for any adverse events occurring within 2 weeks after the examination, with no notable disparities observed between the two groups.
Alternative to AKS Approach in Second Intubation
The authors explained that, in their approach in the second intubation, the common axis-keeping shortening (AKS) was not utilized, and instead they pushed the colonoscope forward without straightening it, which offers important advantages.
“In this way, slight looping of the colonoscope can be used to flatten the colonic folds as the tip of the instrument is advanced, thereby achieving an observation effect that cannot be reached by any number of withdrawal examinations.”
In general, the stimulation of peristalsis during a second examination allows for the observation of the colonic mucosa from different angles, thereby reducing the rate of missed lesions, the authors added.
“Although the detection of these lesions may not significantly affect clinical outcomes, it serves as a reminder for patients regarding regular follow-ups and lifestyle adjustments,” they explained. “Additionally, it may reduce the likelihood of missing some smaller lesions that progress rapidly, such as de novo cancer.”
Based on the results, the authors concluded that older patients, patients who smoke, or those with lesions found on the first sigmoid inspection have a higher chance of having missed adenomas discovered in the sigmoid colon during the second intubation examination.
“If one of these risk factors is present, a second examination of the sigmoid colon may be considered to detect missed lesions,” they said.
The added time commitment of just 1.47 minutes can be a worthwhile tradeoff, they added.
“Considering the improvements in the adenoma-detection rate provided by the second intubation, this modest time increase may be acceptable.”
The authors had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Large Language Models Cut Time, Cost of Guideline Development
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans Newly Diagnosed with GI Malignancies
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, a workgroup at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) initiated a quality improvement project to use the weekly GI Tumor Board meeting to identify patients who would benefit from PHASER testing. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population. Our goal was to identify patients with potentially impaired metabolism of 5FU and/or irinotecan prior to initiating treatment so that the doses of the appropriate drugs could be adjusted, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment.
Results
Here we report outcomes based on 12 months of data. We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 5-FU or irinotecan during the period 1/1/24-12/31/24 based on pharmacy records. We separately identified all VACHS patients with newly diagnosed GI cancers in 2024 using data generated by the Tumor Registrar. 39 patients met criteria for PHASER testing. Of those, 37/39 (95%) patients got the testing. The 2 additional patients who were identified during our data analysis will be offered PHASER testing. Of the 37 patients who were tested, 7 patients (19%) had a genetic variant that could potentially impact chemotherapy dosing. 3 of these 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy and did require dose-adjustment. Of note, 100% of patients diagnosed with a new GI malignancy at VA Connecticut in 2024 whose treatment plan included possible chemotherapy with 5FU or Irinotecan got PHASER testing. In one year, this best practice is now our standard procedure.
Conclusions
Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VACHS on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Diagnostic Challenges of Persistent Hypoglycemia in a Patient with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Background
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for approximately 1–2% of GI cancers. Hypoglycemia in patients with GIST is an uncommon and diagnostically challenging presentation, often involving a broad differential diagnosis. This case report explores the diagnostic difficulties encountered in managing persistent hypoglycemia in a patient with a history of advanced GIST.
Case Presentation
An 80-year-old male with a history of stage IV GIST, diagnosed in 2010, presented with persistent symptomatic hypoglycemia. His medical history included extensive abdominal disease, managed with multiple interventions: esophagogastrostomy, left lateral liver resection, a Whipple procedure, and Y-90 radioembolization. He received adjuvant imatinib therapy, which was discontinued in April 2024 due to significant adverse effects, including anasarca. In 2025, the patient developed progressive hypoglycemia, ultimately requiring continuous D10 infusion to maintain euglycemia, prompting an endocrinology evaluation. The initial diagnostic workup included cortisol, insulin, C-peptide levels, and IGF-1/IGF-2 ratio ruling out insulinoma, adrenal insufficiency, and GISTrelated paraneoplastic syndrome. Imaging studies, including PET and CT, showed no radiological evidence of recurrent GIST. Treatment with octreotide infusion resulted in minimal improvement, whereas daily corticosteroid therapy significantly alleviated the patient’s symptoms. The etiology of hypoglycemia remains elusive, with potential causes under consideration including Y-90 radioembolization-induced damage to glucagon-producing cells, immunotherapy-related adverse effects, or radiologically occult GIST. Insulin autoantibody testing is pending, and the case remains under active investigation, highlighting the diagnostic complexity of hypoglycemia in advanced GIST.
Discussion
Hypoglycemia in the context of GIST is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon. Potential mechanisms include paraneoplastic syndromes, such as non-islet cell tumor hypoglycemia (NICTH) mediated by IGF-2, or treatment-related effects, such as radiation-induced pancreatic or hepatic dysfunction. In this case, the absence of detectable IGF-2 abnormalities and negative imaging complicates the diagnosis. The lack of response to octreotide indicates that somatostatin receptor-mediated pathways may not be involved. The discontinuation of imatinib and prior Y-90 radioembolization further broadens the differential, as both could contribute to metabolic dysregulation.
Conclusions
This case illustrates the need for a systematic and multidisciplinary approach to evaluate hypoglycemia in patients with advanced GIST.
Out-of-Pocket Prep Costs Reduce Screening Colonoscopy Uptake, Especially in Vulnerable Populations
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large insurance-claims analysis in Gastroenterology reported.
Moreover, this cost-sharing contravenes the preventive-care provisions for bowel preparation mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Led by Gastroenterologist Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, a clinical associate professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the study found a significant proportion of prescribed bowel preparation claims — 53% for commercial plans and 83% for Medicare — still involve patient cost-sharing, indicating noncompliance with ACA guidelines. Although expense-sharing was less prevalent among Medicaid claims (just 27%), it was not eliminated, suggesting room for improvement in coverage enforcement across the board.
“Colon cancer is unique in that it can be prevented with colonoscopy, but where are the patients? Bowel prep is a major reason that patients defer screening,” Shah told GI & Hepatology News. He said his group was quite surprised that the majority in the study cohort were paying something out of pocket when these costs should have been covered. “Primary care doctors may not think to ask about bowel prep costs when they order screening colonoscopies.”
The findings emerged from an analysis of 2,593,079 prescription drug claims: 52.9% from commercial plans, 35% from Medicare Part D plans, and 8.3% from Medicaid plans.
“These patient costs of $30 or $50 are a real not a theoretical deterrent,” said Whitney Jones, MD, a gastroenterologist, adjunct clinical professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, and founder of the nonprofit Colon Cancer Prevention Project. Jones was not involved in the analysis. “Some insurers require prior patient authorization for the low-dose preps, but gastroenterologists are doing so many colonoscopies they don’t always have time to get a PA [prior authorization] on everyone.”
With the increasing use of blood and stool-based CRC testing, he added, “when you get a positive result, it’s really important to have the procedure quickly.” And appropriate bowel preparation is a small, cost-effective portion of the total costs of colonoscopy, a procedure that ultimately saves insurers significant money in treatment costs.
The authors noted that while CRC is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US, screening rates remain low, with only 59% of adults aged 45 years or older up to date with screening. Screening rates are particularly low among racial and ethnic minority groups as compared with White individuals, a disparity that highlights the need to address existing barriers and enhance screening efforts.
In the current study, shared costs by bowel preparation volume also varied. Low-volume formulations had consistently higher out-of-pocket costs: a median of $60 for low-volume vs $10 for high-volume in commercial plans. In Medicare, 75% of high-volume claims had shared costs compared with 90% for their low-volume counterparts. The cost-sharing difference was slightly narrower with Medicaid: 27% of high-volume claims vs 30% of low-volume claims.
This is concerning, as low-volume options, which are preferred by patients for their better tolerability, can enhance uptake and adherence and improve colonoscopy outcomes. Shah advises physicians to consider prescribing low-volume preparations. “Let patients know about the potential out-of-pocket cost and about copay cards and assistance programs and use high-volume preps as an alternative rather than a go-to,” he said.
As to costs across insurance types, among commercial plans, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $10 for high-volume and $60 for low-volume product claims. For Medicare, the median nonzero out-of-pocket cost was $8 for high-volume and $55.99 for low-volume products.
Under the ACA, CRC screening is classified as a recommended preventive service, requiring health plans to cover it without cost-sharing. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services previously tried to enforce this mandate in 2015 and 2016, stating that colonoscopy preparation medications should be covered at no cost, many health plans are still not compliant.
At the nonfederal level, Jones noted, Kentucky, which has a significant high-risk population, recently became the first state to pass legislation requiring health benefit plans to cover all guideline-recommended CRC exams and lab tests.
For its part, AGA has also called on payers to eliminate all cost-sharing barriers across the CRC screening continuum.
Of note, the study authors said, the higher compliance with the ACA mandate in commercial and Medicaid plans than in Medicare highlights disparities that may disproportionately affect vulnerable older adults. While nearly half of commercial patients and nearly three quarters of Medicaid patients incurred zero out-of-pocket costs, fewer than 17% of Medicare beneficiaries, or 1 in 6, did so.
Although these costs may be low relative to the colonoscopy, they nevertheless can deter uptake of preventive screenings, potentially leading to higher CRC incidence and mortality. “While some patients may be willing to pay modest out-of-pocket costs, any required payment, however small, can serve as a barrier to preventative care, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote. “These financial barriers will continue to contribute to widening disparities and hinder progress toward equitable screening outcomes.”
In the meantime, said Shah, “Physicians should advocate now to their representatives in Congress that bowel prep costs should already be covered as part of the ACA.”
This study was funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals, maker of SUFLAVE preparation. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. Jones is a speaker and consultant for Grail LLC.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY