GI Oncology

The numbers don’t lie: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been on the rise in younger people in the United States for over two decades.

While the data show a clear trend, researchers still face a glaring unanswered question: Why is this happening?

A recent report in Nature may offer an important clue to start unraveling this early-onset CRC mystery.

 

What the Study Found

The new analysis found that childhood exposure to a carcinogenic toxin known to cause DNA damage is strongly linked to the development of early-onset CRC.

The bacterial toxin, called colibactin, is produced by certain strains of Escherichia coli and other bacteria — more specifically, polyketide synthase (PKS)–positive strains. Previous research has found colibactin-related mutations can occur in up to 15% of CRC cases overall, but a link to early-onset disease has been less clear.

In this recent genetic analysis, investigators led by Marcos Díaz-Gay, PhD, analyzed CRC biopsies from 981 patients across 11 countries and 4 continents. The team tracked DNA damage from colibactin by identifying distinctive mutational signatures — called SBS88 and ID18 — left by the toxin.

Díaz-Gay and colleagues found that these mutational signatures were 3.3 times more common in patients diagnosed before 40 years of age than in those over 70 years.

Colibactin exposure was also linked to about a quarter of mutations that inactivate the colorectal tumor suppressor gene APC.

However, epidemiologic factors linked to CRC, such as body mass index, diet, and lifestyle, were not considered in the study, which the investigators noted is a key limitation.

“Our results show for the first time an association between the presence of colibactin-induced mutational signatures and early-onset colorectal cancer,” Díaz-Gay, a genomic researcher at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Madrid, Spain, and colleagues wrote.

“Prior studies have indicated that mutagenesis due to colibactin exposure can occur within the first decade of life and then ceases,” the investigators explained. But “this ‘head start’ could plausibly result in an increased risk of early-onset cancers.”

 

What the Study Means

Trevor Graham, PhD, a professor of genomics and evolution at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, helped put the study findings into context.

Others have proposed that colibactin “could have a role in causing early-onset disease,” Graham commented in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. “This work provides [the] strong[est] data yet that the hypothesis is correct.”

Plus, Graham added, “This is very good quality research. The authors have collected bowel cancers from countries around the world and performed whole genome sequencing on them.”

“Most importantly,” he said, the colibactin mutations were more common in people who got bowel cancer before 50 years of age, which “suggests the mutations caused by these bugs in the bowel could be a cause of early-onset bowel cancer, although further studies are needed to confirm this.”

Although the study doesn’t prove causation, “this is a very important finding,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and CRC specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a hook to understand what’s going on.”

However, “it’s not at all likely that this single entity is entirely responsible for early-onset CRC,” Venook clarified.

But if childhood exposure to colibactin is responsible, at least in part, for the growing incidence of early-onset CRC, it would suggest that PKS-positive bacteria have become more common in the gut microbiome of younger people over the past few decades. PKS-positive E coli are common, in general — found in up to 20% of healthy people and about 67% of patients with CRC.

If these bacteria are becoming more common in younger people, the reason isn’t yet clear. “The working hypothesis is overuse of antibiotics in young kids,” said Venook, who is collaborating with colleagues to launch an additional multi-institution investigation into the issue.

There are also clinical implications if the findings pan out, Venook said.

This work could lead to a diagnostic test — perhaps one looking for circulating mutational DNA in the blood — that could “give us a leg up on who’s at risk for early-onset CRC,” Venook said. “That’s how this could really make a difference.”

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, and others. Several investigators disclosed ties to io9, Inocras, Hologic, Quotient Therapeutics, and Microbiotica. Venook didn’t have any disclosures; disclosure information for Graham was unavailable.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The numbers don’t lie: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been on the rise in younger people in the United States for over two decades.

While the data show a clear trend, researchers still face a glaring unanswered question: Why is this happening?

A recent report in Nature may offer an important clue to start unraveling this early-onset CRC mystery.

 

What the Study Found

The new analysis found that childhood exposure to a carcinogenic toxin known to cause DNA damage is strongly linked to the development of early-onset CRC.

The bacterial toxin, called colibactin, is produced by certain strains of Escherichia coli and other bacteria — more specifically, polyketide synthase (PKS)–positive strains. Previous research has found colibactin-related mutations can occur in up to 15% of CRC cases overall, but a link to early-onset disease has been less clear.

In this recent genetic analysis, investigators led by Marcos Díaz-Gay, PhD, analyzed CRC biopsies from 981 patients across 11 countries and 4 continents. The team tracked DNA damage from colibactin by identifying distinctive mutational signatures — called SBS88 and ID18 — left by the toxin.

Díaz-Gay and colleagues found that these mutational signatures were 3.3 times more common in patients diagnosed before 40 years of age than in those over 70 years.

Colibactin exposure was also linked to about a quarter of mutations that inactivate the colorectal tumor suppressor gene APC.

However, epidemiologic factors linked to CRC, such as body mass index, diet, and lifestyle, were not considered in the study, which the investigators noted is a key limitation.

“Our results show for the first time an association between the presence of colibactin-induced mutational signatures and early-onset colorectal cancer,” Díaz-Gay, a genomic researcher at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Madrid, Spain, and colleagues wrote.

“Prior studies have indicated that mutagenesis due to colibactin exposure can occur within the first decade of life and then ceases,” the investigators explained. But “this ‘head start’ could plausibly result in an increased risk of early-onset cancers.”

 

What the Study Means

Trevor Graham, PhD, a professor of genomics and evolution at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, helped put the study findings into context.

Others have proposed that colibactin “could have a role in causing early-onset disease,” Graham commented in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. “This work provides [the] strong[est] data yet that the hypothesis is correct.”

Plus, Graham added, “This is very good quality research. The authors have collected bowel cancers from countries around the world and performed whole genome sequencing on them.”

“Most importantly,” he said, the colibactin mutations were more common in people who got bowel cancer before 50 years of age, which “suggests the mutations caused by these bugs in the bowel could be a cause of early-onset bowel cancer, although further studies are needed to confirm this.”

Although the study doesn’t prove causation, “this is a very important finding,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and CRC specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a hook to understand what’s going on.”

However, “it’s not at all likely that this single entity is entirely responsible for early-onset CRC,” Venook clarified.

But if childhood exposure to colibactin is responsible, at least in part, for the growing incidence of early-onset CRC, it would suggest that PKS-positive bacteria have become more common in the gut microbiome of younger people over the past few decades. PKS-positive E coli are common, in general — found in up to 20% of healthy people and about 67% of patients with CRC.

If these bacteria are becoming more common in younger people, the reason isn’t yet clear. “The working hypothesis is overuse of antibiotics in young kids,” said Venook, who is collaborating with colleagues to launch an additional multi-institution investigation into the issue.

There are also clinical implications if the findings pan out, Venook said.

This work could lead to a diagnostic test — perhaps one looking for circulating mutational DNA in the blood — that could “give us a leg up on who’s at risk for early-onset CRC,” Venook said. “That’s how this could really make a difference.”

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, and others. Several investigators disclosed ties to io9, Inocras, Hologic, Quotient Therapeutics, and Microbiotica. Venook didn’t have any disclosures; disclosure information for Graham was unavailable.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The numbers don’t lie: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been on the rise in younger people in the United States for over two decades.

While the data show a clear trend, researchers still face a glaring unanswered question: Why is this happening?

A recent report in Nature may offer an important clue to start unraveling this early-onset CRC mystery.

 

What the Study Found

The new analysis found that childhood exposure to a carcinogenic toxin known to cause DNA damage is strongly linked to the development of early-onset CRC.

The bacterial toxin, called colibactin, is produced by certain strains of Escherichia coli and other bacteria — more specifically, polyketide synthase (PKS)–positive strains. Previous research has found colibactin-related mutations can occur in up to 15% of CRC cases overall, but a link to early-onset disease has been less clear.

In this recent genetic analysis, investigators led by Marcos Díaz-Gay, PhD, analyzed CRC biopsies from 981 patients across 11 countries and 4 continents. The team tracked DNA damage from colibactin by identifying distinctive mutational signatures — called SBS88 and ID18 — left by the toxin.

Díaz-Gay and colleagues found that these mutational signatures were 3.3 times more common in patients diagnosed before 40 years of age than in those over 70 years.

Colibactin exposure was also linked to about a quarter of mutations that inactivate the colorectal tumor suppressor gene APC.

However, epidemiologic factors linked to CRC, such as body mass index, diet, and lifestyle, were not considered in the study, which the investigators noted is a key limitation.

“Our results show for the first time an association between the presence of colibactin-induced mutational signatures and early-onset colorectal cancer,” Díaz-Gay, a genomic researcher at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Madrid, Spain, and colleagues wrote.

“Prior studies have indicated that mutagenesis due to colibactin exposure can occur within the first decade of life and then ceases,” the investigators explained. But “this ‘head start’ could plausibly result in an increased risk of early-onset cancers.”

 

What the Study Means

Trevor Graham, PhD, a professor of genomics and evolution at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, helped put the study findings into context.

Others have proposed that colibactin “could have a role in causing early-onset disease,” Graham commented in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. “This work provides [the] strong[est] data yet that the hypothesis is correct.”

Plus, Graham added, “This is very good quality research. The authors have collected bowel cancers from countries around the world and performed whole genome sequencing on them.”

“Most importantly,” he said, the colibactin mutations were more common in people who got bowel cancer before 50 years of age, which “suggests the mutations caused by these bugs in the bowel could be a cause of early-onset bowel cancer, although further studies are needed to confirm this.”

Although the study doesn’t prove causation, “this is a very important finding,” Alan Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and CRC specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a hook to understand what’s going on.”

However, “it’s not at all likely that this single entity is entirely responsible for early-onset CRC,” Venook clarified.

But if childhood exposure to colibactin is responsible, at least in part, for the growing incidence of early-onset CRC, it would suggest that PKS-positive bacteria have become more common in the gut microbiome of younger people over the past few decades. PKS-positive E coli are common, in general — found in up to 20% of healthy people and about 67% of patients with CRC.

If these bacteria are becoming more common in younger people, the reason isn’t yet clear. “The working hypothesis is overuse of antibiotics in young kids,” said Venook, who is collaborating with colleagues to launch an additional multi-institution investigation into the issue.

There are also clinical implications if the findings pan out, Venook said.

This work could lead to a diagnostic test — perhaps one looking for circulating mutational DNA in the blood — that could “give us a leg up on who’s at risk for early-onset CRC,” Venook said. “That’s how this could really make a difference.”

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, and others. Several investigators disclosed ties to io9, Inocras, Hologic, Quotient Therapeutics, and Microbiotica. Venook didn’t have any disclosures; disclosure information for Graham was unavailable.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the ever-expanding options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, blood tests using precision medicine are becoming more advanced and convenient than ever; however, caveats abound, and when it comes to potentially life-saving screening measures, picking the optimal screening tool is critical.

Regarding tests, “perfect is not possible,” said William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, who took part in a debate on the pros and cons of key screening options at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

“We have to remember that that’s the reality of colorectal cancer screening, and we need to meet our patients where they live,” said Grady, who argued on behalf of blood-based tests, including cell-free (cf) DNA (Shield, Guardant Health) and cfDNA plus protein biomarkers (Freenome).

A big point in their favor is their convenience and higher patient compliance — better tests that don’t get done do not work, he stressed.

He cited data that showed suboptimal compliance rates with standard colonoscopy: Rates range from about 70% among non-Hispanic White individuals to 67% among Black individuals, 51% among Hispanic individuals, and the low rate of just 26% among patients aged between 45 and 50 years.

With troubling increases in CRC incidence among younger patients, “that’s a group we’re particularly concerned about,” Grady said.

Meanwhile, studies show compliance rates with blood-based tests are ≥ 80%, with similar rates seen among those racial and ethnic groups, with lower rates for conventional colonoscopy, he noted.

Importantly, in terms of performance in detecting CRC, blood-based tests stand up to other modalities, as demonstrated in a real-world study conducted by Grady and his colleagues showing a sensitivity of 83% for the cfDNA test, 74% for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) stool test, and 92% for a multitarget stool DNA test compared with 95% for colonoscopy.

“What we can see is that the sensitivity of blood-based tests looks favorable and comparable to other tests,” he said.

Among the four options, cfDNA had a highest patient adherence rate (85%-86%) compared with colonoscopy (28%-42%), FIT (43%-65%), and multitarget stool DNA (48%-60%).

“The bottom line is that these tests decrease CRC mortality and incidence, and we know there’s a potential to improve compliance with colorectal cancer screening if we offer blood-based tests for average-risk people who refuse colonoscopy,” Grady said.

 

Blood-Based Tests: Caveats, Harms?

Arguing against blood-based tests in the debate, Robert E. Schoen, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, at the University of Pittsburgh, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, checked off some of the key caveats.

While the overall sensitivity of blood-based tests may look favorable, these tests don’t detect early CRC well,” said Schoen. The sensitivity rates for stage 1 CRC are 64.7% with Guardant Health and 57.1% with Freenome.

Furthermore, their rates of detecting advanced adenomas are very low; the rate with Guardant Health is only about 13%, and with Freenome is even lower at 12.5%, he reported.

These rates are “similar to the false positive rate, with poor discrimination and accuracy for advanced adenomas,” Schoen said. “Without substantial detection of advanced adenomas, blood-based testing is inferior [to other options].”

Importantly, the low advanced adenoma rate translates to a lack of CRC prevention, which is key to reducing CRC mortality, he noted.

Essential to success with blood-based biopsies, as well as with stool tests, is the need for a follow-up colonoscopy if results are positive, but Schoen pointed out that this may or may not happen.

He cited research from FIT data showing that among 33,000 patients with abnormal stool tests, the rate of follow-up colonoscopy within a year, despite the concerning results, was a dismal 56%.

“We have a long way to go to make sure that people who get positive noninvasive tests get followed up,” he said.

In terms of the argument that blood-based screening is better than no screening at all, Schoen cited recent research that projected reductions in the risk for CRC incidence and mortality among 100,000 patients with each of the screening modalities.

Starting with standard colonoscopy performed every 10 years, the reductions in incidence and mortality would be 79% and 81%, respectively, followed by annual FIT, at 72% and 76%; multitarget DNA every 3 years, at 68% and 73%; and cfDNA (Shield), at 45% and 55%.

Based on those rates, if patients originally opting for FIT were to shift to blood-based tests, “the rate of CRC deaths would increase,” Schoen noted.

The findings underscore that “blood testing is unfavorable as a ‘substitution test,’” he added. “In fact, widespread adoption of blood testing could increase CRC morbidity.”

“Is it better than nothing?” he asked. “Yes, but only if performance of a colonoscopy after a positive test is accomplished.”

 

What About FIT?

Arguing that stool-based testing, or FIT, is the ideal choice as a first-line CRC test Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pointed to its prominent role in organized screening programs, including regions where resources may limit the widespread utilization of routine first-line colonoscopy screening. In addition, it narrows colonoscopies to those that are already prescreened as being at risk.

Data from one such program, reported by Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, showed that participation in CRC screening doubled from 40% to 80% over 10 years after initiating FIT screening. CRC mortality over the same period decreased by 50% from baseline, and incidence fell by as much as 75%.

In follow-up colonoscopies, Tinmouth noted that collective research from studies reflecting real-world participation and adherence to FIT in populations in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and California show follow-up colonoscopy rates of 88%, 85%, 70%, and 78%, respectively.

Meanwhile, a recent large comparison of biennial FIT (n = 26,719) vs one-time colonoscopy (n = 26,332) screening, the first study to directly compare the two, showed noninferiority, with nearly identical rates of CRC mortality at 10 years (0.22% colonoscopy vs 0.24% FIT) as well as CRC incidence (1.13% vs 1.22%, respectively).

“This study shows that in the context of organized screening, the benefits of FIT are the same as colonoscopy in the most important outcome of CRC — mortality,” Tinmouth said.

Furthermore, as noted with blood-based screening, the higher participation with FIT shows a much more even racial/ethnic participation than that observed with colonoscopy.

“FIT has clear and compelling advantages over colonoscopy,” she said. As well as better compliance among all groups, “it is less costly and also better for the environment [by using fewer resources],” she added.

 

Colonoscopy: ‘Best for First-Line Screening’

Making the case that standard colonoscopy should in fact be the first-line test, Swati G. Patel, MD, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Center at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, emphasized the robust, large population studies showing its benefits. Among them is a landmark national policy study showing a significant reduction in CRC incidence and mortality associated with first-line colonoscopy and adenoma removal.

A multitude of other studies in different settings have also shown similar benefits across large populations, Patel added.

In terms of its key advantages over FIT, the once-a-decade screening requirement for average-risk patients is seen as highly favorable by many, as evidenced in clinical trial data showing that individuals highly value tests that are accurate and do not need to be completed frequently, she said. Research from various other trials of organized screening programs further showed patients crossing over from FIT to colonoscopy, including one study of more than 3500 patients comparing colonoscopy and FIT, which had approximately 40% adherence with FIT vs nearly 90% with colonoscopy.

Notably, as many as 25% of the patients in the FIT arm in that study crossed over to colonoscopy, presumably due to preference for the once-a-decade regimen, Patel said.

“Colonoscopy had a substantial and impressive long-term protective benefit both in terms of developing colon cancer and dying from colon cancer,” she said.

Regarding the head-to-head FIT and colonoscopy comparison that Tinmouth described, Patel noted that a supplemental table in the study’s appendix of patients who completed screening does reveal increasing separation between the two approaches, favoring colonoscopy, in terms of longer-term CRC incidence and mortality.

The collective findings underscore that “colonoscopy as a standalone test is uniquely cost-effective,” in the face of costs related to colon cancer treatment.

Instead of relying on biennial tests with FIT, colonoscopy allows clinicians to immediately risk-stratify those individuals who can benefit from closer surveillance and really relax surveillance for those who are determined to be low risk, she said.

Grady had been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and had consulted for Karius. Shoen reported relationships with Guardant Health and grant/research support from Exact Sciences, Freenome, and Immunovia. Tinmouth had no disclosures to report. Patel disclosed relationships with Olympus America and Exact Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the ever-expanding options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, blood tests using precision medicine are becoming more advanced and convenient than ever; however, caveats abound, and when it comes to potentially life-saving screening measures, picking the optimal screening tool is critical.

Regarding tests, “perfect is not possible,” said William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, who took part in a debate on the pros and cons of key screening options at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

“We have to remember that that’s the reality of colorectal cancer screening, and we need to meet our patients where they live,” said Grady, who argued on behalf of blood-based tests, including cell-free (cf) DNA (Shield, Guardant Health) and cfDNA plus protein biomarkers (Freenome).

A big point in their favor is their convenience and higher patient compliance — better tests that don’t get done do not work, he stressed.

He cited data that showed suboptimal compliance rates with standard colonoscopy: Rates range from about 70% among non-Hispanic White individuals to 67% among Black individuals, 51% among Hispanic individuals, and the low rate of just 26% among patients aged between 45 and 50 years.

With troubling increases in CRC incidence among younger patients, “that’s a group we’re particularly concerned about,” Grady said.

Meanwhile, studies show compliance rates with blood-based tests are ≥ 80%, with similar rates seen among those racial and ethnic groups, with lower rates for conventional colonoscopy, he noted.

Importantly, in terms of performance in detecting CRC, blood-based tests stand up to other modalities, as demonstrated in a real-world study conducted by Grady and his colleagues showing a sensitivity of 83% for the cfDNA test, 74% for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) stool test, and 92% for a multitarget stool DNA test compared with 95% for colonoscopy.

“What we can see is that the sensitivity of blood-based tests looks favorable and comparable to other tests,” he said.

Among the four options, cfDNA had a highest patient adherence rate (85%-86%) compared with colonoscopy (28%-42%), FIT (43%-65%), and multitarget stool DNA (48%-60%).

“The bottom line is that these tests decrease CRC mortality and incidence, and we know there’s a potential to improve compliance with colorectal cancer screening if we offer blood-based tests for average-risk people who refuse colonoscopy,” Grady said.

 

Blood-Based Tests: Caveats, Harms?

Arguing against blood-based tests in the debate, Robert E. Schoen, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, at the University of Pittsburgh, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, checked off some of the key caveats.

While the overall sensitivity of blood-based tests may look favorable, these tests don’t detect early CRC well,” said Schoen. The sensitivity rates for stage 1 CRC are 64.7% with Guardant Health and 57.1% with Freenome.

Furthermore, their rates of detecting advanced adenomas are very low; the rate with Guardant Health is only about 13%, and with Freenome is even lower at 12.5%, he reported.

These rates are “similar to the false positive rate, with poor discrimination and accuracy for advanced adenomas,” Schoen said. “Without substantial detection of advanced adenomas, blood-based testing is inferior [to other options].”

Importantly, the low advanced adenoma rate translates to a lack of CRC prevention, which is key to reducing CRC mortality, he noted.

Essential to success with blood-based biopsies, as well as with stool tests, is the need for a follow-up colonoscopy if results are positive, but Schoen pointed out that this may or may not happen.

He cited research from FIT data showing that among 33,000 patients with abnormal stool tests, the rate of follow-up colonoscopy within a year, despite the concerning results, was a dismal 56%.

“We have a long way to go to make sure that people who get positive noninvasive tests get followed up,” he said.

In terms of the argument that blood-based screening is better than no screening at all, Schoen cited recent research that projected reductions in the risk for CRC incidence and mortality among 100,000 patients with each of the screening modalities.

Starting with standard colonoscopy performed every 10 years, the reductions in incidence and mortality would be 79% and 81%, respectively, followed by annual FIT, at 72% and 76%; multitarget DNA every 3 years, at 68% and 73%; and cfDNA (Shield), at 45% and 55%.

Based on those rates, if patients originally opting for FIT were to shift to blood-based tests, “the rate of CRC deaths would increase,” Schoen noted.

The findings underscore that “blood testing is unfavorable as a ‘substitution test,’” he added. “In fact, widespread adoption of blood testing could increase CRC morbidity.”

“Is it better than nothing?” he asked. “Yes, but only if performance of a colonoscopy after a positive test is accomplished.”

 

What About FIT?

Arguing that stool-based testing, or FIT, is the ideal choice as a first-line CRC test Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pointed to its prominent role in organized screening programs, including regions where resources may limit the widespread utilization of routine first-line colonoscopy screening. In addition, it narrows colonoscopies to those that are already prescreened as being at risk.

Data from one such program, reported by Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, showed that participation in CRC screening doubled from 40% to 80% over 10 years after initiating FIT screening. CRC mortality over the same period decreased by 50% from baseline, and incidence fell by as much as 75%.

In follow-up colonoscopies, Tinmouth noted that collective research from studies reflecting real-world participation and adherence to FIT in populations in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and California show follow-up colonoscopy rates of 88%, 85%, 70%, and 78%, respectively.

Meanwhile, a recent large comparison of biennial FIT (n = 26,719) vs one-time colonoscopy (n = 26,332) screening, the first study to directly compare the two, showed noninferiority, with nearly identical rates of CRC mortality at 10 years (0.22% colonoscopy vs 0.24% FIT) as well as CRC incidence (1.13% vs 1.22%, respectively).

“This study shows that in the context of organized screening, the benefits of FIT are the same as colonoscopy in the most important outcome of CRC — mortality,” Tinmouth said.

Furthermore, as noted with blood-based screening, the higher participation with FIT shows a much more even racial/ethnic participation than that observed with colonoscopy.

“FIT has clear and compelling advantages over colonoscopy,” she said. As well as better compliance among all groups, “it is less costly and also better for the environment [by using fewer resources],” she added.

 

Colonoscopy: ‘Best for First-Line Screening’

Making the case that standard colonoscopy should in fact be the first-line test, Swati G. Patel, MD, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Center at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, emphasized the robust, large population studies showing its benefits. Among them is a landmark national policy study showing a significant reduction in CRC incidence and mortality associated with first-line colonoscopy and adenoma removal.

A multitude of other studies in different settings have also shown similar benefits across large populations, Patel added.

In terms of its key advantages over FIT, the once-a-decade screening requirement for average-risk patients is seen as highly favorable by many, as evidenced in clinical trial data showing that individuals highly value tests that are accurate and do not need to be completed frequently, she said. Research from various other trials of organized screening programs further showed patients crossing over from FIT to colonoscopy, including one study of more than 3500 patients comparing colonoscopy and FIT, which had approximately 40% adherence with FIT vs nearly 90% with colonoscopy.

Notably, as many as 25% of the patients in the FIT arm in that study crossed over to colonoscopy, presumably due to preference for the once-a-decade regimen, Patel said.

“Colonoscopy had a substantial and impressive long-term protective benefit both in terms of developing colon cancer and dying from colon cancer,” she said.

Regarding the head-to-head FIT and colonoscopy comparison that Tinmouth described, Patel noted that a supplemental table in the study’s appendix of patients who completed screening does reveal increasing separation between the two approaches, favoring colonoscopy, in terms of longer-term CRC incidence and mortality.

The collective findings underscore that “colonoscopy as a standalone test is uniquely cost-effective,” in the face of costs related to colon cancer treatment.

Instead of relying on biennial tests with FIT, colonoscopy allows clinicians to immediately risk-stratify those individuals who can benefit from closer surveillance and really relax surveillance for those who are determined to be low risk, she said.

Grady had been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and had consulted for Karius. Shoen reported relationships with Guardant Health and grant/research support from Exact Sciences, Freenome, and Immunovia. Tinmouth had no disclosures to report. Patel disclosed relationships with Olympus America and Exact Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the ever-expanding options for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, blood tests using precision medicine are becoming more advanced and convenient than ever; however, caveats abound, and when it comes to potentially life-saving screening measures, picking the optimal screening tool is critical.

Regarding tests, “perfect is not possible,” said William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, who took part in a debate on the pros and cons of key screening options at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2025.

“We have to remember that that’s the reality of colorectal cancer screening, and we need to meet our patients where they live,” said Grady, who argued on behalf of blood-based tests, including cell-free (cf) DNA (Shield, Guardant Health) and cfDNA plus protein biomarkers (Freenome).

A big point in their favor is their convenience and higher patient compliance — better tests that don’t get done do not work, he stressed.

He cited data that showed suboptimal compliance rates with standard colonoscopy: Rates range from about 70% among non-Hispanic White individuals to 67% among Black individuals, 51% among Hispanic individuals, and the low rate of just 26% among patients aged between 45 and 50 years.

With troubling increases in CRC incidence among younger patients, “that’s a group we’re particularly concerned about,” Grady said.

Meanwhile, studies show compliance rates with blood-based tests are ≥ 80%, with similar rates seen among those racial and ethnic groups, with lower rates for conventional colonoscopy, he noted.

Importantly, in terms of performance in detecting CRC, blood-based tests stand up to other modalities, as demonstrated in a real-world study conducted by Grady and his colleagues showing a sensitivity of 83% for the cfDNA test, 74% for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) stool test, and 92% for a multitarget stool DNA test compared with 95% for colonoscopy.

“What we can see is that the sensitivity of blood-based tests looks favorable and comparable to other tests,” he said.

Among the four options, cfDNA had a highest patient adherence rate (85%-86%) compared with colonoscopy (28%-42%), FIT (43%-65%), and multitarget stool DNA (48%-60%).

“The bottom line is that these tests decrease CRC mortality and incidence, and we know there’s a potential to improve compliance with colorectal cancer screening if we offer blood-based tests for average-risk people who refuse colonoscopy,” Grady said.

 

Blood-Based Tests: Caveats, Harms?

Arguing against blood-based tests in the debate, Robert E. Schoen, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, at the University of Pittsburgh, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, checked off some of the key caveats.

While the overall sensitivity of blood-based tests may look favorable, these tests don’t detect early CRC well,” said Schoen. The sensitivity rates for stage 1 CRC are 64.7% with Guardant Health and 57.1% with Freenome.

Furthermore, their rates of detecting advanced adenomas are very low; the rate with Guardant Health is only about 13%, and with Freenome is even lower at 12.5%, he reported.

These rates are “similar to the false positive rate, with poor discrimination and accuracy for advanced adenomas,” Schoen said. “Without substantial detection of advanced adenomas, blood-based testing is inferior [to other options].”

Importantly, the low advanced adenoma rate translates to a lack of CRC prevention, which is key to reducing CRC mortality, he noted.

Essential to success with blood-based biopsies, as well as with stool tests, is the need for a follow-up colonoscopy if results are positive, but Schoen pointed out that this may or may not happen.

He cited research from FIT data showing that among 33,000 patients with abnormal stool tests, the rate of follow-up colonoscopy within a year, despite the concerning results, was a dismal 56%.

“We have a long way to go to make sure that people who get positive noninvasive tests get followed up,” he said.

In terms of the argument that blood-based screening is better than no screening at all, Schoen cited recent research that projected reductions in the risk for CRC incidence and mortality among 100,000 patients with each of the screening modalities.

Starting with standard colonoscopy performed every 10 years, the reductions in incidence and mortality would be 79% and 81%, respectively, followed by annual FIT, at 72% and 76%; multitarget DNA every 3 years, at 68% and 73%; and cfDNA (Shield), at 45% and 55%.

Based on those rates, if patients originally opting for FIT were to shift to blood-based tests, “the rate of CRC deaths would increase,” Schoen noted.

The findings underscore that “blood testing is unfavorable as a ‘substitution test,’” he added. “In fact, widespread adoption of blood testing could increase CRC morbidity.”

“Is it better than nothing?” he asked. “Yes, but only if performance of a colonoscopy after a positive test is accomplished.”

 

What About FIT?

Arguing that stool-based testing, or FIT, is the ideal choice as a first-line CRC test Jill Tinmouth, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pointed to its prominent role in organized screening programs, including regions where resources may limit the widespread utilization of routine first-line colonoscopy screening. In addition, it narrows colonoscopies to those that are already prescreened as being at risk.

Data from one such program, reported by Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, showed that participation in CRC screening doubled from 40% to 80% over 10 years after initiating FIT screening. CRC mortality over the same period decreased by 50% from baseline, and incidence fell by as much as 75%.

In follow-up colonoscopies, Tinmouth noted that collective research from studies reflecting real-world participation and adherence to FIT in populations in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and California show follow-up colonoscopy rates of 88%, 85%, 70%, and 78%, respectively.

Meanwhile, a recent large comparison of biennial FIT (n = 26,719) vs one-time colonoscopy (n = 26,332) screening, the first study to directly compare the two, showed noninferiority, with nearly identical rates of CRC mortality at 10 years (0.22% colonoscopy vs 0.24% FIT) as well as CRC incidence (1.13% vs 1.22%, respectively).

“This study shows that in the context of organized screening, the benefits of FIT are the same as colonoscopy in the most important outcome of CRC — mortality,” Tinmouth said.

Furthermore, as noted with blood-based screening, the higher participation with FIT shows a much more even racial/ethnic participation than that observed with colonoscopy.

“FIT has clear and compelling advantages over colonoscopy,” she said. As well as better compliance among all groups, “it is less costly and also better for the environment [by using fewer resources],” she added.

 

Colonoscopy: ‘Best for First-Line Screening’

Making the case that standard colonoscopy should in fact be the first-line test, Swati G. Patel, MD, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Center at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, emphasized the robust, large population studies showing its benefits. Among them is a landmark national policy study showing a significant reduction in CRC incidence and mortality associated with first-line colonoscopy and adenoma removal.

A multitude of other studies in different settings have also shown similar benefits across large populations, Patel added.

In terms of its key advantages over FIT, the once-a-decade screening requirement for average-risk patients is seen as highly favorable by many, as evidenced in clinical trial data showing that individuals highly value tests that are accurate and do not need to be completed frequently, she said. Research from various other trials of organized screening programs further showed patients crossing over from FIT to colonoscopy, including one study of more than 3500 patients comparing colonoscopy and FIT, which had approximately 40% adherence with FIT vs nearly 90% with colonoscopy.

Notably, as many as 25% of the patients in the FIT arm in that study crossed over to colonoscopy, presumably due to preference for the once-a-decade regimen, Patel said.

“Colonoscopy had a substantial and impressive long-term protective benefit both in terms of developing colon cancer and dying from colon cancer,” she said.

Regarding the head-to-head FIT and colonoscopy comparison that Tinmouth described, Patel noted that a supplemental table in the study’s appendix of patients who completed screening does reveal increasing separation between the two approaches, favoring colonoscopy, in terms of longer-term CRC incidence and mortality.

The collective findings underscore that “colonoscopy as a standalone test is uniquely cost-effective,” in the face of costs related to colon cancer treatment.

Instead of relying on biennial tests with FIT, colonoscopy allows clinicians to immediately risk-stratify those individuals who can benefit from closer surveillance and really relax surveillance for those who are determined to be low risk, she said.

Grady had been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and had consulted for Karius. Shoen reported relationships with Guardant Health and grant/research support from Exact Sciences, Freenome, and Immunovia. Tinmouth had no disclosures to report. Patel disclosed relationships with Olympus America and Exact Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

 

The BOSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

 

The BOSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

 

The BOSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Will BOSS Change Minds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Colonoscopist Skill and Benchmarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient Compliance Can’t Be Counted On 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

FIT Tests Potentially a ‘Major Advantage’

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had significantly reduced rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and associated mortality compared with those undergoing bariatric surgery, new research showed.

CRC risk was also lower for patients taking GLP-1s than the general population.

“Our findings show we might need to evaluate these therapies beyond their glycemic or weight loss [effects],” said first author Omar Al Ta’ani, MD, of the Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh.

This supports future prospective studies examining GLP-1s for CRC reduction, added Ta’ani, who presented the results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are known to have a higher risk for CRC, stemming from metabolic risk factors. Whereas prior studies suggested that GLP-1s decrease the risk for CRC compared with other antidiabetic medications, studies looking at the risk for CRC associated with bariatric surgery have had more mixed results, Ta’ani said.

For the comparison, Ta’ani and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of the TriNetX database, identifying patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) enrolled in the database between 2005 and 2019.

Overall, the study included 94,098 GLP-1 users and 24,969 patients who underwent bariatric surgery. Those with a prior history of CRC were excluded.

Using propensity score matching, patients treated with GLP-1s were matched 1:1 with patients who had bariatric surgery based on wide-ranging factors including age, race, gender, demographics, diseases, medications, personal and family history, and hemoglobin A1c.

After the propensity matching, each group included 21,022 patients. About 64% in each group were women; their median age was 53 years and about 65% were White.

Overall, the results showed that patients on GLP-1s had a significantly lower CRC risk compared with those who had bariatric surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.29; P < .0001). The lower risk was also observed among those with high obesity (defined as BMI > 35) compared with those who had surgery (aHR, 0.39; P < .0001).

The results were consistent across genders; however, the differences between GLP-1s and bariatric surgery were not observed in the 18- to 45-year-old age group (BMI > 30, P = .0809; BMI > 35, P = .2318).

Compared with the general population, patients on GLP-1s also had a reduced risk for CRC (aHR, 0.28; P < .0001); however, the difference was not observed between the bariatric surgery group and the general population (aHR, 1.11; P = .3).

Among patients with type 2 diabetes with CRC and a BMI > 30, the 5-year mortality rate was lower in the GLP-1 group vs the bariatric surgery group (aHR, 0.42; P < .001).

Speculating on the mechanisms of GLP-1s that could result in a greater reduction in CRC risk, Ta’ani explained that the key pathways linking type 2 diabetes, obesity, and CRC include hyperinsulinemia, chronic inflammation, and impaired immune surveillance.

Studies have shown that GLP-1s may be more effective in addressing the collective pathways, he said. They “may improve insulin resistance and lower systemic inflammation.” 

Furthermore, GLP1s “inhibit tumor pathways like Wnt/beta-catenin and PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling, which promote apoptosis and reduce tumor cell proliferation,” he added.

 

Bariatric Surgery Findings Questioned

Meanwhile, “bariatric surgery’s impact on CRC remains mixed,” said Ta’ani.

Commenting on the study, Vance L. Albaugh, MD, an assistant professor of metabolic surgery at the Metamor Institute, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, noted that prior studies, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest a potential benefit of bariatric surgery in cancer prevention.

“I think the [current study] is interesting, but it’s been pretty [well-reported] that bariatric surgery does decrease cancer incidence, so I find it questionable that this study shows the opposite of what’s in the literature,” Albaugh, an obesity medicine specialist and bariatric surgeon, said in an interview.

Ta’ani acknowledged the study’s important limitations, including that with a retrospective design, causality cannot be firmly established.

And, as noted by an audience member in the session’s Q&A, the study ended in 2019, which was before GLP-1s had taken off as anti-obesity drugs and before US Food and Drug Administration approvals for weight loss.

Participants were matched based on BMI, however, Ta’ani pointed out.

Albaugh agreed that the study ending in 2019 was a notable limitation. However, the relatively long study period — extending from 2005 to 2019 — was a strength.

“It’s nice to have a very long period to capture people who are diagnosed, because it takes a long time to develop CRC,” he said. “To evaluate effects [of more recent drug regimens], you would not be able to have the follow-up they had.”

Other study limitations included the need to adjust for ranges of obesity severity, said Albaugh. “The risk of colorectal cancer is probably much different for someone with a BMI of 60 vs a BMI of 30.” 

Ultimately, a key question the study results raise is whether GLP-1 drugs have protective effects above and beyond that of weight loss, he said.

“I think that’s a very exciting question and that’s what I think the researchers’ next work should really focus on.”

Ta’ani had no disclosures to report. Albaugh reported that he had consulted for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had significantly reduced rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and associated mortality compared with those undergoing bariatric surgery, new research showed.

CRC risk was also lower for patients taking GLP-1s than the general population.

“Our findings show we might need to evaluate these therapies beyond their glycemic or weight loss [effects],” said first author Omar Al Ta’ani, MD, of the Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh.

This supports future prospective studies examining GLP-1s for CRC reduction, added Ta’ani, who presented the results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are known to have a higher risk for CRC, stemming from metabolic risk factors. Whereas prior studies suggested that GLP-1s decrease the risk for CRC compared with other antidiabetic medications, studies looking at the risk for CRC associated with bariatric surgery have had more mixed results, Ta’ani said.

For the comparison, Ta’ani and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of the TriNetX database, identifying patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) enrolled in the database between 2005 and 2019.

Overall, the study included 94,098 GLP-1 users and 24,969 patients who underwent bariatric surgery. Those with a prior history of CRC were excluded.

Using propensity score matching, patients treated with GLP-1s were matched 1:1 with patients who had bariatric surgery based on wide-ranging factors including age, race, gender, demographics, diseases, medications, personal and family history, and hemoglobin A1c.

After the propensity matching, each group included 21,022 patients. About 64% in each group were women; their median age was 53 years and about 65% were White.

Overall, the results showed that patients on GLP-1s had a significantly lower CRC risk compared with those who had bariatric surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.29; P < .0001). The lower risk was also observed among those with high obesity (defined as BMI > 35) compared with those who had surgery (aHR, 0.39; P < .0001).

The results were consistent across genders; however, the differences between GLP-1s and bariatric surgery were not observed in the 18- to 45-year-old age group (BMI > 30, P = .0809; BMI > 35, P = .2318).

Compared with the general population, patients on GLP-1s also had a reduced risk for CRC (aHR, 0.28; P < .0001); however, the difference was not observed between the bariatric surgery group and the general population (aHR, 1.11; P = .3).

Among patients with type 2 diabetes with CRC and a BMI > 30, the 5-year mortality rate was lower in the GLP-1 group vs the bariatric surgery group (aHR, 0.42; P < .001).

Speculating on the mechanisms of GLP-1s that could result in a greater reduction in CRC risk, Ta’ani explained that the key pathways linking type 2 diabetes, obesity, and CRC include hyperinsulinemia, chronic inflammation, and impaired immune surveillance.

Studies have shown that GLP-1s may be more effective in addressing the collective pathways, he said. They “may improve insulin resistance and lower systemic inflammation.” 

Furthermore, GLP1s “inhibit tumor pathways like Wnt/beta-catenin and PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling, which promote apoptosis and reduce tumor cell proliferation,” he added.

 

Bariatric Surgery Findings Questioned

Meanwhile, “bariatric surgery’s impact on CRC remains mixed,” said Ta’ani.

Commenting on the study, Vance L. Albaugh, MD, an assistant professor of metabolic surgery at the Metamor Institute, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, noted that prior studies, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest a potential benefit of bariatric surgery in cancer prevention.

“I think the [current study] is interesting, but it’s been pretty [well-reported] that bariatric surgery does decrease cancer incidence, so I find it questionable that this study shows the opposite of what’s in the literature,” Albaugh, an obesity medicine specialist and bariatric surgeon, said in an interview.

Ta’ani acknowledged the study’s important limitations, including that with a retrospective design, causality cannot be firmly established.

And, as noted by an audience member in the session’s Q&A, the study ended in 2019, which was before GLP-1s had taken off as anti-obesity drugs and before US Food and Drug Administration approvals for weight loss.

Participants were matched based on BMI, however, Ta’ani pointed out.

Albaugh agreed that the study ending in 2019 was a notable limitation. However, the relatively long study period — extending from 2005 to 2019 — was a strength.

“It’s nice to have a very long period to capture people who are diagnosed, because it takes a long time to develop CRC,” he said. “To evaluate effects [of more recent drug regimens], you would not be able to have the follow-up they had.”

Other study limitations included the need to adjust for ranges of obesity severity, said Albaugh. “The risk of colorectal cancer is probably much different for someone with a BMI of 60 vs a BMI of 30.” 

Ultimately, a key question the study results raise is whether GLP-1 drugs have protective effects above and beyond that of weight loss, he said.

“I think that’s a very exciting question and that’s what I think the researchers’ next work should really focus on.”

Ta’ani had no disclosures to report. Albaugh reported that he had consulted for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes treated with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had significantly reduced rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and associated mortality compared with those undergoing bariatric surgery, new research showed.

CRC risk was also lower for patients taking GLP-1s than the general population.

“Our findings show we might need to evaluate these therapies beyond their glycemic or weight loss [effects],” said first author Omar Al Ta’ani, MD, of the Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh.

This supports future prospective studies examining GLP-1s for CRC reduction, added Ta’ani, who presented the results at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are known to have a higher risk for CRC, stemming from metabolic risk factors. Whereas prior studies suggested that GLP-1s decrease the risk for CRC compared with other antidiabetic medications, studies looking at the risk for CRC associated with bariatric surgery have had more mixed results, Ta’ani said.

For the comparison, Ta’ani and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of the TriNetX database, identifying patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) enrolled in the database between 2005 and 2019.

Overall, the study included 94,098 GLP-1 users and 24,969 patients who underwent bariatric surgery. Those with a prior history of CRC were excluded.

Using propensity score matching, patients treated with GLP-1s were matched 1:1 with patients who had bariatric surgery based on wide-ranging factors including age, race, gender, demographics, diseases, medications, personal and family history, and hemoglobin A1c.

After the propensity matching, each group included 21,022 patients. About 64% in each group were women; their median age was 53 years and about 65% were White.

Overall, the results showed that patients on GLP-1s had a significantly lower CRC risk compared with those who had bariatric surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.29; P < .0001). The lower risk was also observed among those with high obesity (defined as BMI > 35) compared with those who had surgery (aHR, 0.39; P < .0001).

The results were consistent across genders; however, the differences between GLP-1s and bariatric surgery were not observed in the 18- to 45-year-old age group (BMI > 30, P = .0809; BMI > 35, P = .2318).

Compared with the general population, patients on GLP-1s also had a reduced risk for CRC (aHR, 0.28; P < .0001); however, the difference was not observed between the bariatric surgery group and the general population (aHR, 1.11; P = .3).

Among patients with type 2 diabetes with CRC and a BMI > 30, the 5-year mortality rate was lower in the GLP-1 group vs the bariatric surgery group (aHR, 0.42; P < .001).

Speculating on the mechanisms of GLP-1s that could result in a greater reduction in CRC risk, Ta’ani explained that the key pathways linking type 2 diabetes, obesity, and CRC include hyperinsulinemia, chronic inflammation, and impaired immune surveillance.

Studies have shown that GLP-1s may be more effective in addressing the collective pathways, he said. They “may improve insulin resistance and lower systemic inflammation.” 

Furthermore, GLP1s “inhibit tumor pathways like Wnt/beta-catenin and PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling, which promote apoptosis and reduce tumor cell proliferation,” he added.

 

Bariatric Surgery Findings Questioned

Meanwhile, “bariatric surgery’s impact on CRC remains mixed,” said Ta’ani.

Commenting on the study, Vance L. Albaugh, MD, an assistant professor of metabolic surgery at the Metamor Institute, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, noted that prior studies, including a recent meta-analysis, suggest a potential benefit of bariatric surgery in cancer prevention.

“I think the [current study] is interesting, but it’s been pretty [well-reported] that bariatric surgery does decrease cancer incidence, so I find it questionable that this study shows the opposite of what’s in the literature,” Albaugh, an obesity medicine specialist and bariatric surgeon, said in an interview.

Ta’ani acknowledged the study’s important limitations, including that with a retrospective design, causality cannot be firmly established.

And, as noted by an audience member in the session’s Q&A, the study ended in 2019, which was before GLP-1s had taken off as anti-obesity drugs and before US Food and Drug Administration approvals for weight loss.

Participants were matched based on BMI, however, Ta’ani pointed out.

Albaugh agreed that the study ending in 2019 was a notable limitation. However, the relatively long study period — extending from 2005 to 2019 — was a strength.

“It’s nice to have a very long period to capture people who are diagnosed, because it takes a long time to develop CRC,” he said. “To evaluate effects [of more recent drug regimens], you would not be able to have the follow-up they had.”

Other study limitations included the need to adjust for ranges of obesity severity, said Albaugh. “The risk of colorectal cancer is probably much different for someone with a BMI of 60 vs a BMI of 30.” 

Ultimately, a key question the study results raise is whether GLP-1 drugs have protective effects above and beyond that of weight loss, he said.

“I think that’s a very exciting question and that’s what I think the researchers’ next work should really focus on.”

Ta’ani had no disclosures to report. Albaugh reported that he had consulted for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Molecular residual disease (MRD) positivity, as detected via circulating tumor (ct) DNA following curative resection, was significantly associated with improved disease-free survival after chemotherapy in patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), the results of the BESPOKE study showed.

“These findings highlight the value of utilizing ctDNA to select which patients should receive management chemotherapy and which patients can be potentially spared chemotherapy’s physical, emotional, and financial toxicities without compromising their long-term outcomes,” said first author Kim Magee of Natera, a clinical genetic testing company in Austin, Texas.

“ctDNA is emerging as the most powerful and prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer,” said Magee, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

In stage II CRC, as many as 80% of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only about 5% benefit from chemotherapy. In stage III CRC, about half of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only 20% benefit from chemotherapy, and 30% recur despite chemotherapy, Magee explained.

The inability to pinpoint which patients will most benefit from chemotherapy means “we know we are needlessly treating [many] of these patients,” she said.

 

ctDNA Offers Insights Into Tumor’s Real-Time Status

Just as cells release fragments (cell-free DNA) into the blood as they regenerate, tumor cells also release fragments — ctDNA — which can represent a biomarker of a cancer’s current state, Magee explained.

Because the DNA fragments have a half-life of only about 2 hours, they represent a key snapshot in real time, “as opposed to imaging, which can take several weeks or months to show changes,” she said.

To determine the effects of ctDNA testing on treatment decisions and asymptomatic recurrence rates, Magee and colleagues analyzed data from the multicenter, prospective study, which used the Signatera (Natera) residual disease test.

The study included 1794 patients with resected stage II-III CRC who were treated with the standard of care between May 2020 and March 2023 who had complete clinical and laboratory data available.

ctDNA was collected 2-6 weeks post surgery and at surveillance months 2, 4, 6, and every 3 months through month 24.

Among the 1166 patients included in a final analysis, 694 (59.5%) patients received adjunctive chemotherapy, and 472 (40.5%) received no chemotherapy.

Among those with stage II CRC, a postoperative MRD positivity rate was 7.54%, while the rate in those with stage III disease was 28.35%.

Overall, 16.1% of patients had a recurrence by the trial end at 24 months.

The results showed that among patients who tested negative for ctDNA, the disease-free survival estimates were highly favorable, at 91.8% for stage II and 87.4% for stage III CRC.

Comparatively, for those who were ctDNA-positive, disease-free survival rates were just 45.9% and 35.5%, respectively, regardless of whether those patients received adjunctive chemotherapy.

At the study’s first ctDNA surveillance timepoint, patients who were ctDNA-positive with stage II and III CRC combined had substantially worse disease-free survival than patients who were ctDNA-negative (HR, 26.4; P < .0001).

 

Impact of Chemotherapy

Patients who were found to be MRD-positive on ctDNA testing and treated with chemotherapy had a 40.3% 2-year disease-free survival rate compared with just 24.7% among MRD-positive patients who did not receive chemotherapy.

Meanwhile, those who were MRD-negative and treated with chemotherapy had a substantially higher 2-year disease-free survival rate of 89.7% — nearly identical to the 89.5% observed in the no-chemotherapy group.

The findings underscored that “the adjuvant chemotherapy benefits were only observed among those who were ctDNA-positive,” Magee said.

“ctDNA can guide postsurgical treatment decisions by identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy, and in the surveillance setting, ctDNA can predict recurrence — usually ahead of scans,” she added. “This opens the opportunity to intervene and give those patients a second chance at cure.”

On the heels of major recent advances including CT, MRI, and PET-CT, “we believe that ctDNA represents the next major pivotal advancement in monitoring and eventually better understanding cancer diagnostics,” Magee said.

 

Commenting on the study, William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Clinic, Seattle, said the BESPOKE trial represents a “well-done” study, adding to research underscoring that “MRD testing is a more accurate prognostic assay than the current standards of CT scan and CEA [carcinoembryonic antigen, a tumor marker] testing.”

However, “a limitation is that this is 2 years of follow-up, [while] 5-year follow-up data would be ideal,” he said in an interview, noting, importantly, that “a small number of patients who have no evidence of disease (NED) at 2 years develop recurrence by 5 years.”

Furthermore, more research demonstrating the outcomes of MRD detection is needed, Grady added.

“A caveat is that studies are still needed showing that if you change your care of patients based on the MRD result, that you improve outcomes,” he said. “These studies are being planned and initiated at this time, from my understanding.”

Oncologists treating patients with CRC are commonly performing MRD assessment with ctDNA assays; however, Grady noted that the practice is still not the standard of care.

Regarding the suggestion of ctDNA representing the next major, pivotal step in cancer monitoring, Grady responded that “I think this is aspirational, and further studies are needed to make this claim.”

However, “it does look like it has the promise to turn out to be true.”

Magee is an employee of Nater. Grady has been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and has consulted for Karius.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Molecular residual disease (MRD) positivity, as detected via circulating tumor (ct) DNA following curative resection, was significantly associated with improved disease-free survival after chemotherapy in patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), the results of the BESPOKE study showed.

“These findings highlight the value of utilizing ctDNA to select which patients should receive management chemotherapy and which patients can be potentially spared chemotherapy’s physical, emotional, and financial toxicities without compromising their long-term outcomes,” said first author Kim Magee of Natera, a clinical genetic testing company in Austin, Texas.

“ctDNA is emerging as the most powerful and prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer,” said Magee, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

In stage II CRC, as many as 80% of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only about 5% benefit from chemotherapy. In stage III CRC, about half of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only 20% benefit from chemotherapy, and 30% recur despite chemotherapy, Magee explained.

The inability to pinpoint which patients will most benefit from chemotherapy means “we know we are needlessly treating [many] of these patients,” she said.

 

ctDNA Offers Insights Into Tumor’s Real-Time Status

Just as cells release fragments (cell-free DNA) into the blood as they regenerate, tumor cells also release fragments — ctDNA — which can represent a biomarker of a cancer’s current state, Magee explained.

Because the DNA fragments have a half-life of only about 2 hours, they represent a key snapshot in real time, “as opposed to imaging, which can take several weeks or months to show changes,” she said.

To determine the effects of ctDNA testing on treatment decisions and asymptomatic recurrence rates, Magee and colleagues analyzed data from the multicenter, prospective study, which used the Signatera (Natera) residual disease test.

The study included 1794 patients with resected stage II-III CRC who were treated with the standard of care between May 2020 and March 2023 who had complete clinical and laboratory data available.

ctDNA was collected 2-6 weeks post surgery and at surveillance months 2, 4, 6, and every 3 months through month 24.

Among the 1166 patients included in a final analysis, 694 (59.5%) patients received adjunctive chemotherapy, and 472 (40.5%) received no chemotherapy.

Among those with stage II CRC, a postoperative MRD positivity rate was 7.54%, while the rate in those with stage III disease was 28.35%.

Overall, 16.1% of patients had a recurrence by the trial end at 24 months.

The results showed that among patients who tested negative for ctDNA, the disease-free survival estimates were highly favorable, at 91.8% for stage II and 87.4% for stage III CRC.

Comparatively, for those who were ctDNA-positive, disease-free survival rates were just 45.9% and 35.5%, respectively, regardless of whether those patients received adjunctive chemotherapy.

At the study’s first ctDNA surveillance timepoint, patients who were ctDNA-positive with stage II and III CRC combined had substantially worse disease-free survival than patients who were ctDNA-negative (HR, 26.4; P < .0001).

 

Impact of Chemotherapy

Patients who were found to be MRD-positive on ctDNA testing and treated with chemotherapy had a 40.3% 2-year disease-free survival rate compared with just 24.7% among MRD-positive patients who did not receive chemotherapy.

Meanwhile, those who were MRD-negative and treated with chemotherapy had a substantially higher 2-year disease-free survival rate of 89.7% — nearly identical to the 89.5% observed in the no-chemotherapy group.

The findings underscored that “the adjuvant chemotherapy benefits were only observed among those who were ctDNA-positive,” Magee said.

“ctDNA can guide postsurgical treatment decisions by identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy, and in the surveillance setting, ctDNA can predict recurrence — usually ahead of scans,” she added. “This opens the opportunity to intervene and give those patients a second chance at cure.”

On the heels of major recent advances including CT, MRI, and PET-CT, “we believe that ctDNA represents the next major pivotal advancement in monitoring and eventually better understanding cancer diagnostics,” Magee said.

 

Commenting on the study, William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Clinic, Seattle, said the BESPOKE trial represents a “well-done” study, adding to research underscoring that “MRD testing is a more accurate prognostic assay than the current standards of CT scan and CEA [carcinoembryonic antigen, a tumor marker] testing.”

However, “a limitation is that this is 2 years of follow-up, [while] 5-year follow-up data would be ideal,” he said in an interview, noting, importantly, that “a small number of patients who have no evidence of disease (NED) at 2 years develop recurrence by 5 years.”

Furthermore, more research demonstrating the outcomes of MRD detection is needed, Grady added.

“A caveat is that studies are still needed showing that if you change your care of patients based on the MRD result, that you improve outcomes,” he said. “These studies are being planned and initiated at this time, from my understanding.”

Oncologists treating patients with CRC are commonly performing MRD assessment with ctDNA assays; however, Grady noted that the practice is still not the standard of care.

Regarding the suggestion of ctDNA representing the next major, pivotal step in cancer monitoring, Grady responded that “I think this is aspirational, and further studies are needed to make this claim.”

However, “it does look like it has the promise to turn out to be true.”

Magee is an employee of Nater. Grady has been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and has consulted for Karius.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Molecular residual disease (MRD) positivity, as detected via circulating tumor (ct) DNA following curative resection, was significantly associated with improved disease-free survival after chemotherapy in patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), the results of the BESPOKE study showed.

“These findings highlight the value of utilizing ctDNA to select which patients should receive management chemotherapy and which patients can be potentially spared chemotherapy’s physical, emotional, and financial toxicities without compromising their long-term outcomes,” said first author Kim Magee of Natera, a clinical genetic testing company in Austin, Texas.

“ctDNA is emerging as the most powerful and prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer,” said Magee, who presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

In stage II CRC, as many as 80% of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only about 5% benefit from chemotherapy. In stage III CRC, about half of patients are cured by surgery alone, while only 20% benefit from chemotherapy, and 30% recur despite chemotherapy, Magee explained.

The inability to pinpoint which patients will most benefit from chemotherapy means “we know we are needlessly treating [many] of these patients,” she said.

 

ctDNA Offers Insights Into Tumor’s Real-Time Status

Just as cells release fragments (cell-free DNA) into the blood as they regenerate, tumor cells also release fragments — ctDNA — which can represent a biomarker of a cancer’s current state, Magee explained.

Because the DNA fragments have a half-life of only about 2 hours, they represent a key snapshot in real time, “as opposed to imaging, which can take several weeks or months to show changes,” she said.

To determine the effects of ctDNA testing on treatment decisions and asymptomatic recurrence rates, Magee and colleagues analyzed data from the multicenter, prospective study, which used the Signatera (Natera) residual disease test.

The study included 1794 patients with resected stage II-III CRC who were treated with the standard of care between May 2020 and March 2023 who had complete clinical and laboratory data available.

ctDNA was collected 2-6 weeks post surgery and at surveillance months 2, 4, 6, and every 3 months through month 24.

Among the 1166 patients included in a final analysis, 694 (59.5%) patients received adjunctive chemotherapy, and 472 (40.5%) received no chemotherapy.

Among those with stage II CRC, a postoperative MRD positivity rate was 7.54%, while the rate in those with stage III disease was 28.35%.

Overall, 16.1% of patients had a recurrence by the trial end at 24 months.

The results showed that among patients who tested negative for ctDNA, the disease-free survival estimates were highly favorable, at 91.8% for stage II and 87.4% for stage III CRC.

Comparatively, for those who were ctDNA-positive, disease-free survival rates were just 45.9% and 35.5%, respectively, regardless of whether those patients received adjunctive chemotherapy.

At the study’s first ctDNA surveillance timepoint, patients who were ctDNA-positive with stage II and III CRC combined had substantially worse disease-free survival than patients who were ctDNA-negative (HR, 26.4; P < .0001).

 

Impact of Chemotherapy

Patients who were found to be MRD-positive on ctDNA testing and treated with chemotherapy had a 40.3% 2-year disease-free survival rate compared with just 24.7% among MRD-positive patients who did not receive chemotherapy.

Meanwhile, those who were MRD-negative and treated with chemotherapy had a substantially higher 2-year disease-free survival rate of 89.7% — nearly identical to the 89.5% observed in the no-chemotherapy group.

The findings underscored that “the adjuvant chemotherapy benefits were only observed among those who were ctDNA-positive,” Magee said.

“ctDNA can guide postsurgical treatment decisions by identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy, and in the surveillance setting, ctDNA can predict recurrence — usually ahead of scans,” she added. “This opens the opportunity to intervene and give those patients a second chance at cure.”

On the heels of major recent advances including CT, MRI, and PET-CT, “we believe that ctDNA represents the next major pivotal advancement in monitoring and eventually better understanding cancer diagnostics,” Magee said.

 

Commenting on the study, William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Clinic, Seattle, said the BESPOKE trial represents a “well-done” study, adding to research underscoring that “MRD testing is a more accurate prognostic assay than the current standards of CT scan and CEA [carcinoembryonic antigen, a tumor marker] testing.”

However, “a limitation is that this is 2 years of follow-up, [while] 5-year follow-up data would be ideal,” he said in an interview, noting, importantly, that “a small number of patients who have no evidence of disease (NED) at 2 years develop recurrence by 5 years.”

Furthermore, more research demonstrating the outcomes of MRD detection is needed, Grady added.

“A caveat is that studies are still needed showing that if you change your care of patients based on the MRD result, that you improve outcomes,” he said. “These studies are being planned and initiated at this time, from my understanding.”

Oncologists treating patients with CRC are commonly performing MRD assessment with ctDNA assays; however, Grady noted that the practice is still not the standard of care.

Regarding the suggestion of ctDNA representing the next major, pivotal step in cancer monitoring, Grady responded that “I think this is aspirational, and further studies are needed to make this claim.”

However, “it does look like it has the promise to turn out to be true.”

Magee is an employee of Nater. Grady has been on the scientific advisory boards for Guardant Health and Freenome and has consulted for Karius.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear colleagues,

Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.

But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care

BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.

The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.

There are several techniques utilized for EMR:

• The lift and snare technique.
• The snare-in-cap technique.
• The Band-snare technique.

The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.

The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.

The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.

The advantages of this technique are:

• It is widely commercially available.
• It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
• The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
• There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
• Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.

Band-snare EMR also has limitations:

• There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
• It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.

My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.

Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.

From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.

In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.

Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.

ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions

BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.

The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).

Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.

ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.

Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.

Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.

Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.

Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.

Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.

Dear colleagues,

Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.

But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care

BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.

The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.

There are several techniques utilized for EMR:

• The lift and snare technique.
• The snare-in-cap technique.
• The Band-snare technique.

The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.

The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.

The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.

The advantages of this technique are:

• It is widely commercially available.
• It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
• The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
• There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
• Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.

Band-snare EMR also has limitations:

• There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
• It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.

My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.

Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.

From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.

In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.

Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.

ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions

BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.

The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).

Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.

ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.

Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.

Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.

Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.

Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.

Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.

Dear colleagues,

Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.

But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care

BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.

The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.

There are several techniques utilized for EMR:

• The lift and snare technique.
• The snare-in-cap technique.
• The Band-snare technique.

The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.

The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.

The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.

The advantages of this technique are:

• It is widely commercially available.
• It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
• The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
• There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
• Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.

Band-snare EMR also has limitations:

• There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
• It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.

My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.

Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.

From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.

In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.

Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.

ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions

BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.

The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).

Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.

ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.

Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.

Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.

Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.

Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.

Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Patients carrying at least one of the four key genes show a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence and mortality in gastric cancer, according to new research that potentially paves the way for precision oncology and improved targeting of therapies.

“About a third of patients with gastric cancer in our study had somatic mutations or variants of uncertain significance in [one of] four key genes,” lead author Ulysses Ribeiro, MD, PhD, a professor of digestive system surgery at the University of São Paulo School of Medicine in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a press briefing for the study, presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

“These patients were more likely to have their cancer come back or to die from the disease, even after surgery and the best chemotherapy and immunotherapy regimens,” said Ribeiro. While treatment strategies in gastric cancer have improved in recent years, resistance to multiple drugs continues, and the 5-year overall survival rate remains low — about 36% — underscoring the critical need for targeted therapies.

In an effort to identify genetic alterations that could have prognostic value, Ribeiro and his colleagues used next-generation DNA sequencing to analyze 21 genes in the tumor samples of 87 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone curative surgery and chemotherapy at the Sao Paulo Cancer Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Using Cox regression analysis, they found pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance in the following four genes: BRCA2, CDH1, RHOA, and TP53. “We found that 33% of patients carried at least one of these four genes,” Ribeiro told GI & Hepatology News.

Individually, each of the four genes with pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance had significantly or near-significantly higher risks in a survival analysis vs wild-type or benign variants, including BRCA2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.33; P = .030); CDH1 (HR, 7.54; P = .004); RHOA (HR, 29.24; P < .001); and TP53 (HR, 2.82; P = .07).

A further multivariate analysis adjusting for key confounders showed that, when combined, carriers of the genes had lower disease-free survival (P = .005) and worse overall survival (P = .009) than those with none of the mutations.

“Individually, all four genes were related to prognosis in our gastric cancer patients, and when combined, the genes had even a higher difference in prognosis, varying from 2 to 28 times higher,” Ribeiro said.

Overall, factors such as having a more advanced tumor, node, metastasis stage, pathological stage, and the presence of a pathogenic mutation or a variant of uncertain significance in the four genes in the model were independently associated with worse disease-free survival.

 

Familiar Genes

Some of these genes are highly familiar. BRCA2 is well-known for its role in increasing the risk for breast and ovarian cancers, and CDH1 is known to be associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, which is the most common hereditary cancer syndrome linked to gastric cancer.

TP53, also known as the “guardian of the genome,” is the most commonly altered gene in human cancers, while RHOA is known to be involved in encoding the GTPase protein RhoA, which is key in the regulation of cell shape, motility, and other essential cellular processes.

“This is the first time that these four genes have been shown to strongly relate to these gastric cancer outcomes,” said Ribeiro. This suggests that there’s more than one pathway by which stomach cancer forms and that some stomach cancers are much more aggressive than others.

He noted that “patients without these high-risk mutations” could be given “less aggressive treatment, in some cases sparing them from unnecessary side effects.”

Speaking during the press briefing, Loren A. Laine, MD, AGAF, who is a professor of medicine and chief of the Section of Digestive Diseases at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and council chair of DDW 2025, agreed that “certainly, if these genetic factors, along with other factors, predict risk, this also has implications in practice with respect to the level of monitoring during the follow-up and determining the need for therapy.”

In addition, “it will be interesting to see how much this adds to other known risk factors, such as pathologic stage,” said Laine.

A strength of this study, “which I think is unique, is that it looks at a Western population,” whereas data on gastric as well as esophageal cancer is heavily biased to Eastern regions like China and East Asia, where the rates are much higher than in the West, Alia Qureshi, MD, an associate professor of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, told GI & Hepatology News.

While noting the limitation of the relatively small sample size, Qureshi said the study is nevertheless “exciting and moving the direction we want to go, specifically towards precision medicine [and] precision oncology.”

The study “builds on existing understanding, especially with regard to TP53 and CDH1, and it points to the opportunity to use this data in a way to direct patient care or possibly therapeutic intervention,” she said.

Laine’s disclosures include consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Pfizer. Qureshi had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients carrying at least one of the four key genes show a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence and mortality in gastric cancer, according to new research that potentially paves the way for precision oncology and improved targeting of therapies.

“About a third of patients with gastric cancer in our study had somatic mutations or variants of uncertain significance in [one of] four key genes,” lead author Ulysses Ribeiro, MD, PhD, a professor of digestive system surgery at the University of São Paulo School of Medicine in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a press briefing for the study, presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

“These patients were more likely to have their cancer come back or to die from the disease, even after surgery and the best chemotherapy and immunotherapy regimens,” said Ribeiro. While treatment strategies in gastric cancer have improved in recent years, resistance to multiple drugs continues, and the 5-year overall survival rate remains low — about 36% — underscoring the critical need for targeted therapies.

In an effort to identify genetic alterations that could have prognostic value, Ribeiro and his colleagues used next-generation DNA sequencing to analyze 21 genes in the tumor samples of 87 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone curative surgery and chemotherapy at the Sao Paulo Cancer Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Using Cox regression analysis, they found pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance in the following four genes: BRCA2, CDH1, RHOA, and TP53. “We found that 33% of patients carried at least one of these four genes,” Ribeiro told GI & Hepatology News.

Individually, each of the four genes with pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance had significantly or near-significantly higher risks in a survival analysis vs wild-type or benign variants, including BRCA2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.33; P = .030); CDH1 (HR, 7.54; P = .004); RHOA (HR, 29.24; P < .001); and TP53 (HR, 2.82; P = .07).

A further multivariate analysis adjusting for key confounders showed that, when combined, carriers of the genes had lower disease-free survival (P = .005) and worse overall survival (P = .009) than those with none of the mutations.

“Individually, all four genes were related to prognosis in our gastric cancer patients, and when combined, the genes had even a higher difference in prognosis, varying from 2 to 28 times higher,” Ribeiro said.

Overall, factors such as having a more advanced tumor, node, metastasis stage, pathological stage, and the presence of a pathogenic mutation or a variant of uncertain significance in the four genes in the model were independently associated with worse disease-free survival.

 

Familiar Genes

Some of these genes are highly familiar. BRCA2 is well-known for its role in increasing the risk for breast and ovarian cancers, and CDH1 is known to be associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, which is the most common hereditary cancer syndrome linked to gastric cancer.

TP53, also known as the “guardian of the genome,” is the most commonly altered gene in human cancers, while RHOA is known to be involved in encoding the GTPase protein RhoA, which is key in the regulation of cell shape, motility, and other essential cellular processes.

“This is the first time that these four genes have been shown to strongly relate to these gastric cancer outcomes,” said Ribeiro. This suggests that there’s more than one pathway by which stomach cancer forms and that some stomach cancers are much more aggressive than others.

He noted that “patients without these high-risk mutations” could be given “less aggressive treatment, in some cases sparing them from unnecessary side effects.”

Speaking during the press briefing, Loren A. Laine, MD, AGAF, who is a professor of medicine and chief of the Section of Digestive Diseases at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and council chair of DDW 2025, agreed that “certainly, if these genetic factors, along with other factors, predict risk, this also has implications in practice with respect to the level of monitoring during the follow-up and determining the need for therapy.”

In addition, “it will be interesting to see how much this adds to other known risk factors, such as pathologic stage,” said Laine.

A strength of this study, “which I think is unique, is that it looks at a Western population,” whereas data on gastric as well as esophageal cancer is heavily biased to Eastern regions like China and East Asia, where the rates are much higher than in the West, Alia Qureshi, MD, an associate professor of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, told GI & Hepatology News.

While noting the limitation of the relatively small sample size, Qureshi said the study is nevertheless “exciting and moving the direction we want to go, specifically towards precision medicine [and] precision oncology.”

The study “builds on existing understanding, especially with regard to TP53 and CDH1, and it points to the opportunity to use this data in a way to direct patient care or possibly therapeutic intervention,” she said.

Laine’s disclosures include consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Pfizer. Qureshi had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients carrying at least one of the four key genes show a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence and mortality in gastric cancer, according to new research that potentially paves the way for precision oncology and improved targeting of therapies.

“About a third of patients with gastric cancer in our study had somatic mutations or variants of uncertain significance in [one of] four key genes,” lead author Ulysses Ribeiro, MD, PhD, a professor of digestive system surgery at the University of São Paulo School of Medicine in São Paulo, Brazil, said in a press briefing for the study, presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025.

“These patients were more likely to have their cancer come back or to die from the disease, even after surgery and the best chemotherapy and immunotherapy regimens,” said Ribeiro. While treatment strategies in gastric cancer have improved in recent years, resistance to multiple drugs continues, and the 5-year overall survival rate remains low — about 36% — underscoring the critical need for targeted therapies.

In an effort to identify genetic alterations that could have prognostic value, Ribeiro and his colleagues used next-generation DNA sequencing to analyze 21 genes in the tumor samples of 87 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone curative surgery and chemotherapy at the Sao Paulo Cancer Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Using Cox regression analysis, they found pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance in the following four genes: BRCA2, CDH1, RHOA, and TP53. “We found that 33% of patients carried at least one of these four genes,” Ribeiro told GI & Hepatology News.

Individually, each of the four genes with pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance had significantly or near-significantly higher risks in a survival analysis vs wild-type or benign variants, including BRCA2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.33; P = .030); CDH1 (HR, 7.54; P = .004); RHOA (HR, 29.24; P < .001); and TP53 (HR, 2.82; P = .07).

A further multivariate analysis adjusting for key confounders showed that, when combined, carriers of the genes had lower disease-free survival (P = .005) and worse overall survival (P = .009) than those with none of the mutations.

“Individually, all four genes were related to prognosis in our gastric cancer patients, and when combined, the genes had even a higher difference in prognosis, varying from 2 to 28 times higher,” Ribeiro said.

Overall, factors such as having a more advanced tumor, node, metastasis stage, pathological stage, and the presence of a pathogenic mutation or a variant of uncertain significance in the four genes in the model were independently associated with worse disease-free survival.

 

Familiar Genes

Some of these genes are highly familiar. BRCA2 is well-known for its role in increasing the risk for breast and ovarian cancers, and CDH1 is known to be associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, which is the most common hereditary cancer syndrome linked to gastric cancer.

TP53, also known as the “guardian of the genome,” is the most commonly altered gene in human cancers, while RHOA is known to be involved in encoding the GTPase protein RhoA, which is key in the regulation of cell shape, motility, and other essential cellular processes.

“This is the first time that these four genes have been shown to strongly relate to these gastric cancer outcomes,” said Ribeiro. This suggests that there’s more than one pathway by which stomach cancer forms and that some stomach cancers are much more aggressive than others.

He noted that “patients without these high-risk mutations” could be given “less aggressive treatment, in some cases sparing them from unnecessary side effects.”

Speaking during the press briefing, Loren A. Laine, MD, AGAF, who is a professor of medicine and chief of the Section of Digestive Diseases at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and council chair of DDW 2025, agreed that “certainly, if these genetic factors, along with other factors, predict risk, this also has implications in practice with respect to the level of monitoring during the follow-up and determining the need for therapy.”

In addition, “it will be interesting to see how much this adds to other known risk factors, such as pathologic stage,” said Laine.

A strength of this study, “which I think is unique, is that it looks at a Western population,” whereas data on gastric as well as esophageal cancer is heavily biased to Eastern regions like China and East Asia, where the rates are much higher than in the West, Alia Qureshi, MD, an associate professor of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, told GI & Hepatology News.

While noting the limitation of the relatively small sample size, Qureshi said the study is nevertheless “exciting and moving the direction we want to go, specifically towards precision medicine [and] precision oncology.”

The study “builds on existing understanding, especially with regard to TP53 and CDH1, and it points to the opportunity to use this data in a way to direct patient care or possibly therapeutic intervention,” she said.

Laine’s disclosures include consulting and/or relationships with Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Celgene, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Pfizer. Qureshi had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.