It has been shown that resection of adenomatous colorectal polyps can reduce mortality due to colorectal cancer. In daily clinical practice, simpler and safer methods of colorectal polypectomy have been sought to enable endoscopists to resect all detected lesions. Among these, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely used in clinical practice because of its advantages in shortening procedure time, reducing delayed bleeding risk, and lowering treatment costs, while maintaining a similar complete resection rate for lesions smaller than 10 mm when compared to conventional hot snare polypectomy. This review introduces the findings of previous studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of the CSP procedure for nonpedunculated polyps smaller than 10 mm, and describes technical points to remember when practicing CSP based on the latest evidence, including using a thin wire snare specifically designed for CSP, and observing the surrounding mucosa of the resection site with chromoendoscopy or image‐enhanced endoscopy to ensure that there is no residual lesion. This review also describes the potential of expanding the indication of CSP as a treatment for lesions larger than 10 mm, those with pedunculated morphology, those located near the appendiceal orifice, and for patients under continuous antithrombotic agent therapy. Finally, the perspective on optimal treatments for recurrent lesions after CSP is also discussed, despite the limited related evidence and data.

Purpose There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may cause people to refrain from undergoing examination resulting in delayed detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there was a delay in CRC detection due to withholding of screening. Methods The colonoscopy screening rate and the CRC detection rate were calculated for patients who underwent fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) from 2018 to 2021 in the longitudinal cohort. The stages of CRC cases detected as a result of positive FIT in each year were compared. Results A total of 39,521 patients were initially screened by FIT over a 4-year period. The FIT-positive rate was 4.7% (441 /9,349) in 2018, 4.6% (420 /9,156) in 2019, 4.9% (453 /9,255) in 2020, and 4.3% (504 /11,760) in 2021. The colonoscopy screening rate for positive FIT results was lower in 2020 than in 2019 (25.8% vs. 38.1%, P < 0.001), and higher in 2021 than in 2020 (56.7% vs. 25.8%, P < 0.001). The CRC detection rate among colonoscopy recipients was higher in 2021 than in 2020 (13% vs. 4%, P = 0.014). Stage 1 or higher CRC accounted for 25.0% (1/4) in 2020, and 78% (18/23) in 2021. Among the CRC cases detected each year, 1 (14%), 1 (25%), and 10 (43%) did not undergo colonoscopy despite positive FIT results in the previous year. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the detection of CRC by screening colonoscopy following FIT and might have led to a delay in the detection of CRC.

Colonoscopy plays an important role in reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer by detecting adenomas and other precancerous lesions. Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) increases lesion visibility by enhancing the microstructure, blood vessels, and mucosal surface color, resulting in the detection of colorectal lesions. In recent years, various IEE techniques have been used in clinical practice, each with its unique characteristics. Numerous studies have reported the effectiveness of IEE in the detection of colorectal lesions. IEEs can be divided into two broad categories according to the nature of the image: images constructed using narrowband wavelength light, such as narrowband imaging and blue laser imaging/blue light imaging, or color images based on white light, such as linked color imaging, texture and color enhancement imaging, and i-scan. Conversely, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as computer-aided diagnosis systems, have recently been developed to assist endoscopists in detecting colorectal lesions during colonoscopy. To better understand the features of each IEE, this review presents the effectiveness of each type of IEE and their combination with AI for colorectal lesion detection by referencing the latest research data.

No abstract

As the rate of discovery of drug-resistant Helicobacter pylori cases increases worldwide, the relevant societies have updated their guidelines for primary eradication regimens. A promising strategy against drug-resistant H. pylori is tailored therapy based on the results of an antibiotic susceptibility test; however, it is difficult to apply this strategy to all cases. Although culture-based antibiotic susceptibility tests can assess resistance to any antimicrobial agent, their greatest disadvantage is the time required to draw a conclusion. In contrast, molecular-based methods, such as polymerase chain reaction, can rapidly determine the presence of resistance, although a single test can only test for one type of antimicrobial agent. Additionally, the limited availability of facilities for molecular-based methods has hindered their widespread use. Therefore, low-cost, minimally invasive, simple, and effective primary regimens are needed. Several studies have compared the efficacy of the latest primary eradication regimens against that of tailored therapies, and their results have shaped guidelines. This article reviews the latest research on empirical and tailored treatments for H. pylori infections. Evidence for the superiority of tailored therapy over empirical therapy is still limited and varies by region and treatment regimen. A network meta-analysis comparing different empirical treatment regimens showed that vonoprazan triple therapy provides a superior eradication effect. Recently, favorable results towards vonoprazan dual therapy have been reported, as it reached eradication levels similar to those of vonoprazan triple therapy. Both vonoprazan dual therapy and tailored therapy based on antibiotic susceptibility tests could contribute to future treatment strategies.

Background: Methods that minimize the time for on-site bowel preparation before colonoscopy are needed. We prospectively validated that a novel algorithm-based active cleansing (ABAC) protocol could reduce the time for preparation compared with the conventional method. Methods: This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective comparative study from April to October 2021. The study compared the bowel preparation time for colonoscopy between patients instructed with the ABAC protocol and control groups. Patients in the ABAC protocol group as well as the control group were administered 2000 mL of polyethylene glycol (PEG) within 2 hours. After the first two hours, patients in the protocol group voluntarily took 300 ml of the solution without the instruction of nursing staff depending on the number of defecations in the first 2 hours. The intervention and control groups were adjusted for background characteristics by propensity score matching (PSM). Results: After adjustment by PSM, 174 patients in each of the two groups were included in the final analysis. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the preparation time was significantly shorter in the intervention group than that in the control group (126.3 ± 32.7 min vs. 144.9 ± 39.9 min, P = 0.018). The proportion of additional PEG intake was significantly higher in the intervention group (16 [9.2%] vs. 6 [3.4%], P = 0.047). The number of defecations was also higher in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 2.5 vs. 6.3 ± 2.2, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Simple active instruction protocol is effective to reduce on-site bowel preparation time and nursing staff labor for colonoscopy.