Summary of Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3 ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

The significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in longstanding colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) justifies the need for endoscopic surveillance. Unlike sporadic CRC, IBD-related CRC does not always follow the predictable sequence of low-grade to high-grade dysplasia and finally to invasive carcinoma, probably because the genetic events shared by both diseases occur in different sequences and frequencies. Surveillance is recommended for patients who have had colonic disease for at least 8-10 years either annually, every 3 years or every 5 years with the interval dependant on the presence of additional risk factors. Currently, the recommended endoscopic strategy is high-definition chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies, although the associated lengthier procedure time and need for experienced endoscopists has limited its uniform uptake in daily practice. There is no clear consensus on the management of dysplasia, which continues to be a challenging area particularly when endoscopically invisible. Management options include complete resection (and/or referral to a tertiary centre), close surveillance or proctocolectomy. Technical advances in endoscopic imaging such as confocal laser endomicroscopy, show exciting potential in increasing dysplasia detection rates but are still far from being routinely used in clinical practice.

Our experience mirrors previously reported real-world cohorts and demonstrates similar outcomes to those observed in randomised controlled trials. These data demonstrate a meaningful reduction in clinical, biochemical and endoscopic disease activity as well as a steroid-sparing effect in patients with previously refractory disease.

Background Polyp detection and resection during colonoscopy significantly reduce long-term colorectal cancer risk. Computer-aided detection (CADe) may increase polyp identification but has undergone limited clinical evaluation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of CADe at colonoscopy within a bowel cancer screening program (BCSP). Methods This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved all eight screening-accredited colonoscopists at an English National Health Service (NHS) BCSP center (February 2020 to December 2021). Patients were randomized to CADe or standard colonoscopy. Patients meeting NHS criteria for bowel cancer screening were included. The primary outcome of interest was polyp detection rate (PDR). Results 658 patients were invited and 44 were excluded. A total of 614 patients were randomized to CADe (n = 308) or standard colonoscopy (n = 306); 35 cases were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to poor bowel preparation (n = 10), an incomplete procedure (n = 24), or a data issue (n = 1). Endocuff Vision was frequently used and evenly distributed (71.7 % CADe and 69.2 % standard). On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was a borderline significant difference in PDR (85.7 % vs. 79.7 %; P = 0.05) but no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR; 71.4 % vs. 65.0 %; P = 0.09) for CADe vs. standard groups, respectively. On per-protocol analysis, no significant difference was observed in these rates. There was no significant difference in procedure times. Conclusions In high-performing colonoscopists in a BCSP who routinely used Endocuff Vision, CADe improved PDR but not ADR. CADe appeared to have limited benefit in a BCSP setting where procedures are performed by experienced colonoscopists.

No abstract

ObjectiveOur aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre.Design/methodA subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible.ResultsOf 107 ‘PCCRC’ cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 ‘PCCRC’ cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was ‘possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate’ (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58).ConclusionOur single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the UK. Sporadic CRC evolves by the cumulative effect of genetic and epigenetic alterations. Typically, over the course of several years, this leads to the transformation of normal colonic epithelium to benign adenomatous polyp, low-grade to high-grade dysplasia and finally cancer—the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Over the last decade, the serrated neoplasia pathway which progresses by methylation of tumour suppressing genes has been increasingly recognised as an important alternative pathway accounting for up to 30% of CRC cases. Endoscopists should be aware of the unique features of serrated lesions so that their early detection, appropriate resection and surveillance interval can be optimised.

Conclusions The programme has delivered competency-based training in clinical research and generated excellent feedback and evidence of increased research engagement in the first cohort. Although the programme to date has focused on hepatology doctors, the skills taught are generic and it is our hope that it is adapted for all specialties and healthcare professions, to help build the next generation of research-ready NHS staff.