This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations: The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions. 1 In the low risk group (patients with 1???2 tubular adenomas?

The clinical significance of ERBB2 amplification/overexpression in gastric cancer remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the ERBB2 status in 463 gastric carcinomas using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH), and compared the findings with histopathological characteristics and with disease-specific survival. ERBB2 overexpression (2 þ and 3 þ ) and amplification (ratio ERBB2/CEP17X2) were found in 43 (9.3%) and 38 (8.2%) gastric carcinomas, respectively. Perfect IHC/FISH correlation was found for the 19 cases scored as 0 (all negative by FISH), and also for the 25 cases scored as 3 þ (all positive by FISH). One out of six carcinomas scored as 1 þ and 12 out of 18 carcinomas scored as 2 þ were positive by FISH. ERBB2 amplification was associated with gastric carcinomas of intestinal type (P ¼ 0.007) and with an expansive growth pattern (P ¼ 0.021). ERBB2 amplification was detected in both histological components of two mixed carcinomas, indicating a common clonal origin. A statistically significant association was found between ERBB2 amplification and worse survival in patients with expansive gastric carcinomas (P ¼ 0.011). We conclude that ERBB2 status may have clinical significance in subsets of gastric cancer patients, and that further studies are warranted to evaluate whether patients whose gastric carcinomas present ERBB2 amplification/overexpression may benefit from therapy targeting this surface receptor. Despite the trend for decreasing incidence, gastric adenocarcinoma is still the second cause of cancer death worldwide (Parkin et al, 2005). The overall 5-year survival rate of patients with resectable gastric cancer ranges from 10 to 30% (Harrison et al, 1998;Msika et al, 2000;Green et al, 2002). Apart from surgical resection, evaluation of available therapies, both neo-adjuvant and adjuvant, provides conflicting results regarding the clinical outcome. Several meta-analyses have been published in an attempt to address the discrepancies reported in the literature, but recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy in Western centres is still not consensual (Hermans et al, 1993;Earle and Maroun, 1999;Mari et al, 2000;Gianni et al, 2001;Janunger et al, 2001Janunger et al, , 2002Hu et al, 2002). The most important prognostic factor established for gastric cancer is the TNM stage, which is determined by the depth of invasion, involvement of lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. However, clinical outcome varies among patients in the same stage (Park et al, 2006). Therefore prognostic factors other than the TNM stage, as well as new therapies, would be of great value for gastric cancer patients.The ERBB2 gene maps to 17q12 -q21 and encodes a 185-kDa transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor (p185), which is a member of the epidermal growth factor receptor family (Xu et al, 1984;Akiyama et al, 1986;Popescu et al, 1989). In breast carcinomas, ERBB2 functions as an oncogene, as amplification of the gene induces protein overexpression in the cell membrane (Slamon et al, 1989). Besides ...

Main Recommendations 1 We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

The Endocuff (ARC Medical Design, Leeds, UK) is a device that, when mounted on the tip of an endoscope, may assist with inspection of a greater surface of the colonic mucosa by pulling backwards, flattening, and stretching the colonic folds as the endoscope is gradually withdrawn. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with those of conventional colonoscopy. The included patients underwent same-day, back-to-back, (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy as the index procedure followed by conventional colonoscopy or vice versa, randomly assigned 1:1) colonoscopies, performed by six endoscopists with documented adenoma detection rates> 35 %, in four tertiary endoscopy facilities. We randomized 200 patients (mean age 61.2 years [standard deviation 9.8]; 86.5 % colorectal cancer screening surveillance cases). Overall, there were seven incomplete examinations using Endocuff and one with conventional colonoscopy ( = 0.03). Times for endoscope insertion (5.0 minutes [0.8 - 21.0] vs. 5.0 minutes [1.0 - 16.0]; = 0.49) and withdrawal (6.0 minutes [3.2 - 29.0] vs. 6.0 minutes [3.1 - 17.0]; = 0.06) were similar for Endocuff-assisted and conventional colonoscopy. We detected one cancer and 195 adenomas; 84 in the proximal colon. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy showed significantly lower overall and proximal colon adenoma miss rates compared with conventional colonoscopy (14.7 % [8.0 % - 21.0 %] vs. 38.4 % [28.1 % - 48.6 %] and 10.4 % [1.8 % - 19.1 %] vs. 38.9 % [23.0 % - 54.8 %], respectively). No difference between the two arms was shown regarding advanced adenoma miss rates, either overall or in the proximal colon. There were no serious adverse events related to the procedures. In comparison with conventional colonoscopy, Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy has a significantly lower adenoma miss rate when performed by high-detector endoscopists. However, the incomplete colonoscopy rate with Endocuff is higher.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02340065.