Background and Aims. Age cutoff is an important factor in deciding whether esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is necessary for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the cutoff value is significantly different across populations. We aimed to determine the age cutoff for EGD that assures a low rate of missing upper gastrointestinal malignancy (UGIM) and to assess the yield of prompt EGD in Vietnamese patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods. All EGDs performed in outpatients during a 6-year period (2014–2019) at a tertiary hospital that provided an open-access endoscopy service were retrospectively reviewed. Repeat or surveillance EGDs were excluded. Different age cutoffs were evaluated in terms of their prediction of the absence of UGIM. The yield of endoscopy to detect one malignancy (YoE) was also calculated. Results. Of 472,744 outpatients presenting with upper gastrointestinal symptoms, there were 2198 (0.4%) patients with UGIM. The median age and male-to-female ratio of patients with UGIMs were 57.9 ± 12.5 years and 2.5 : 1, respectively. The YoEs in patients <40, 40–60, and >60 years of age were <1, 1–10, and >10 per 1000 EGDs, respectively. The age cutoffs of 30 years in females and 35 years in males could detect 98.2% (95% CI: 97.7%–98.8%) of UGIM cases with a YoE of about 1 per 1000 EGDs. Conclusions. The age cutoff for EGD in Vietnamese should be lower than that recommended by current international guidelines. The strategy of prompt EGD showed a low YoE, and its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

BackgroundThe latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear.AimsTo quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines.MethodsWe studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline.ResultsBased on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient‐years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient‐years).ConclusionThe adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21–22%) over 10 years.

No abstract

No abstract