← Issue №1/ week of Jun 24, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 5 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 5, in full

most clinically useful first
Endoscopy rct · n=4,824 · Jun 28, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Computer-aided detection in surveillance colonoscopy: a population-based randomized trial.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayConsider CADe for endoscopists with lower baseline ADR (<54.5%) in surveillance colonoscopy, as it improves detection in this subgroup. For high-performing endoscopists, CADe does not provide additional benefit.
What it foundCADe did not increase overall adenoma detection rate (ADR) in surveillance colonoscopy (57.4% vs 58.8%; aRR 1.02 [95% CI 0.95-1.10]), but improved ADR among lower-performing endoscopists (ADR<54.5%) (45.5% vs 52.1%; aRR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]).
ContextThis challenges the assumption that CADe universally improves ADR in surveillance colonoscopy, showing its benefit is limited to lower-performing endoscopists in a high-performing screening program.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

Decision at stakewhether to use computer-aided detection (CADe) in post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Codesido-Prado L … Cubiella J · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Jun 30, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and ERCP-related procedures.

Guideline / reviewERCPguideline
Clinical takeawayApply ASGE ERCP adverse-event guidance now: routine rectal NSAID (indomethacin or diclofenac 100 mg) for post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and prophylactic pancreatic-duct stenting in high-risk cases, plus aggressive periprocedural hydration.
What it foundThe abstract does not provide specific quantitative results on adverse event rates or comparisons.
ContextThis appears to be a guideline publication aiming to summarize or update standards on ERCP-related adverse events, but without the abstract providing details, it cannot be placed against prior evidence.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

ASGE Standards of Practice Committee … Thosani NC · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=36 · Jul 6, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of underwater versus carbon dioxide insufflation during peroral endoscopic myotomy on post-procedural pain (U-POEM trial).

New evidenceachalasia
Clinical takeawayUnderwater immersion (U-POEM) may reduce post-procedural pain and opioid requirements vs CO2-POEM in achalasia type I/II, though larger trials are needed before protocol changes
What it foundU-POEM reduced immediate post-procedure pain scores compared to CO2-POEM (mean NPRS 1.6 vs. 3.3), cut moderate-severe pain incidence (16.7% vs. 55.5%), and lowered opioid use (5.5% vs. 50%).
ContextChallenges current standard CO2-POEM by demonstrating improved pain outcomes without compromising efficacy or safety in a randomized multicenter trial.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731

Decision at stakethe choice of insufflation method during peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM)

RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes TREATMENT, FOLLOW-UP.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate for achalasia any patient with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, or chest pain, and specifically consider it in patients presumed to have GERD who do not respond to acid suppression (strong recommendation, very low quality). Diagnose with high-resolution manometry using esophageal pressure topography rather than conventional line tracings (strong, high). Subtype by Chicago Classification (I, II, III), this is a conditional recommendation (low quality): subtyping may inform prognosis and treatment choice, with type II having the most favorable outcomes and type III requiring a longer/tailored myotomy; ACG does not make subtyping mandatory for diagnosis. Always perform upper endoscopy in suspected achalasia to exclude pseudoachalasia from an obstructing mass; use cross-sectional imaging and/or endoscopic ultrasound in difficult cases (ACG states this as narrative guidance, not a numbered recommendation, and specifies no biopsy protocol). FLIP is described as complementary, useful in patients who cannot tolerate manometry and as an arbiter in difficult cases where manometry fails to diagnose achalasia despite high clinical suspicion, not as a required confirmatory test. TREATMENT: pneumatic dilation is superior to medical therapy for symptom relief and esophageal emptying (strong, very low). PD and laparoscopic Heller myotomy are both effective and equivalent short- and long-term for patients who are candidates for definitive therapy (strong, high). POEM and LHM give comparable symptomatic improvement (strong, moderate). POEM and PD give comparable symptomatic improvement in type I or II (conditional, low). For type III, tailored POEM or LHM is recommended as a more efficacious disruptive LES therapy than PD (strong, moderate), ACG does NOT single out POEM over LHM for type III. When surgical myotomy is performed, add fundoplication: myotomy with fundoplication is superior to myotomy alone for controlling distal esophageal acid exposure (strong, moderate), using either Dor or Toupet (conditional, moderate). Botulinum toxin injection is first-line therapy for patients unfit for definitive therapy (strong, moderate), and prior botulinum toxin does not significantly compromise subsequent myotomy performance or outcomes (strong, low). POEM carries a higher incidence of GERD than LHM with fundoplication or PD (strong, moderate). Do not place stents for long-term dysphagia (strong, low). Reserve esophagectomy for surgically fit patients with megaesophagus who have failed other interventions (strong, low), and consider Heller myotomy before esophagectomy in patients who failed PD and POEM when the anatomy is conducive and there is evidence of incomplete myotomy (strong, very low). FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low). RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Yang D … Wong Kee Song LM · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · Jul 1, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Dysplasia detection using high-definition scopes with dye vs virtual chromoendoscopy in IBD: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

New evidencemeta-analysisdysplasia surveillance
Clinical takeawayNo need to prefer dye over virtual chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection in IBD surveillance, as both methods perform similarly. Choose based on availability, cost, or operator preference.
What it foundNo significant difference in dysplasia detection odds between dye chromoendoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy in IBD patients (meta-analysis of 8 RCTs).
ContextConfirms prior evidence that virtual chromoendoscopy is non-inferior to dye chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection, simplifying IBD surveillance strategies.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)

Decision at stakethe choice between dye chromoendoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection in IBD

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); if 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by EFFICACY TIER, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab; intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab; lower: adalimumab. PREVIOUSLY TNF-EXPOSED, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab; lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.

ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes) ↗
Mohamed MFH … Shah SA · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=91 · Jul 1, 2026 · Dig Endosc · IF 5.2

Methodology Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound Radiofrequency Ablation (EUS-RFA) for Pancreatic Neoplasms: Results From an International Survey.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayEUS-RFA for pancreatic neoplasms remains non-standardized outside insulinoma; indications, antibiotic prophylaxis, power settings, and follow-up vary widely, so it stays investigational pending consensus, with no immediate practice change.
What it foundSurvey reveals high variability in EUS-RFA practices: 94.1% use it for insulinoma, but technique, prophylaxis (57.5% use antibiotics), power settings, and follow-up definitions vary widely.
ContextChallenges prior assumptions of uniform EUS-RFA adoption; confirms widespread procedural heterogeneity in sedation (96.3% use deep/general), risk assessment (97.5% avoid main duct involvement), and success definitions.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors (current Version 1.2026 / Version 2.2025; peer-reviewed published edition Version 2.2021, criteria unchanged), J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021

Decision at stakethe use of EUS-RFA for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Per NCCN Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors v2.2025: Work up a suspected pancreatic NET with multiphasic pancreatic-protocol contrast CT and/or MRI; consider EUS with biopsy (FNB) for tissue; use somatostatin-receptor imaging with 68Ga- or 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT when it will change management. Grade by mitotic count and Ki-67 under the WHO classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (G1 <3%, G2 3-20%, G3 >20%).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Per NCCN Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors v2.2025: Work up a suspected pancreatic NET with multiphasic pancreatic-protocol contrast CT and/or MRI; consider EUS with biopsy (FNB) for tissue; use somatostatin-receptor imaging with 68Ga- or 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT when it will change management. Obtain biochemical/hormonal evaluation only when a functional syndrome is clinically suspected (not routine for nonfunctioning tumors). Grade by mitotic count and Ki-67 under the WHO classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (G1 <3%, G2 3-20%, G3 >20%). Consider genetics referral/germline testing for inherited syndromes, principally MEN1 and VHL (less commonly NF1, TSC). LOCALIZED well-differentiated G1/G2: for an incidentally found sporadic nonfunctioning tumor <=2 cm without high-risk features, that is, none of the worrisome imaging/pathologic features that favor resection: main pancreatic-duct dilation (>3 mm) or biliary-duct obstruction, pathologic regional lymphadenopathy on cross-sectional imaging, or vascular encasement/invasion of adjacent structures (grade, functional/symptomatic status, size >2 cm, and interval growth are addressed separately below), NCCN lists BOTH observation and surgery as options; observed lesions are followed with multiphasic CT/MRI (± SSTR-PET as indicated) at 3-12 months, then every 6-12 months if stable. For tumors >2 cm, functional/symptomatic, higher-grade, or enlarging on surveillance, surgical resection (enucleation, distal pancreatectomy, or pancreaticoduodenectomy by location) is recommended and can be curative. ADVANCED/METASTATIC well-differentiated: somatostatin analogs (octreotide LAR or lanreotide) are a preferred first-line option for SSTR-positive, lower-grade/lower-proliferation tumors. 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT is now also a first-line option for SSTR-positive disease on the strength of NETTER-2, whose population was newly diagnosed grade 2/3 GEP-NET with Ki-67 10-55% (median PFS 22.8 vs 8.5 months), keep the Ki-67 10-55% window and SSTR-positivity as the qualifiers, not an open-ended 'Ki-67 >=10%.' Subsequent-line options for progressive disease include everolimus, sunitinib (pancreatic primary), CAPTEM (capecitabine + temozolomide), PRRT if not already used, and cabozantinib, FDA-approved March 26, 2025 and included by NCCN as a category 1 option for previously treated, unresectable/locally advanced/metastatic well-differentiated pancreatic NET (the FDA label specifies only 'previously treated,' without a required prior-drug sequence).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors (current Version 1.2026 / Version 2.2025; peer-reviewed published edition Version 2.2021, criteria unchanged), J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Lisotti A … Pham KD · Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · IF 5.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №1 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS