← Issue №12/ week of Sep 20, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 13 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 13, in full

most clinically useful first · the 3 the issue led with are ruled in green
Endoscopy rct · n=100 · Sep 18, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Impact of gastric length of myotomy during POEM on the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux: A randomized controlled trial.

Practice-changingGERDachalasiaproton pump inhibitors
Clinical takeawayPrefer short gastric myotomy (<3 cm) during POEM for type I/II achalasia to reduce post-procedure reflux esophagitis, without compromising symptom relief or clinical efficacy.
What it foundShort gastric myotomy (<3 cm) cut LA grade B+ esophagitis to 24% vs 44% with long myotomy (≥3 cm) at 6 months post-POEM (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.04-5.79).
ContextChallenges the assumption that longer gastric myotomy improves outcomes, showing it increases reflux esophagitis without added benefit.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56

Decision at stakethe optimal gastric myotomy length during POEM to minimize post-procedure GERD

Before antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy, HRM is recommended to rule out achalasia and absent contractility, with provocative testing (e.g., multiple rapid swallows) to identify contractile reserve in ineffective esophageal motility; on-therapy reflux monitoring is suggested before intervention in patients with prior objective GERD findings who remain symptomatic.

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

In patients with classic GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) and no alarm symptoms, give an 8-week trial of empiric PPI ONCE DAILY before a meal (strong, moderate evidence); administer PPI 30-60 minutes before a meal rather than at bedtime (strong, moderate). Endoscopy is the FIRST test in patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, the guideline names weight loss and GI bleeding, and also in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (strong, low). If classic symptoms respond to the 8-week trial, attempt to discontinue the PPI (conditional, low); for patients without erosive esophagitis or Barrett's whose symptoms resolved, an attempt at discontinuation should be made; patients requiring maintenance should take the lowest effective dose. If symptoms do not respond adequately to the 8-week trial, or return on discontinuation, perform diagnostic endoscopy, ideally after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks (strong, low). Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low). In refractory GERD, optimize PPI therapy first (strong, moderate); then pH monitoring OFF PPIs if GERD was not previously established by pH study, long-segment Barrett's, or LA grade C/D esophagitis, versus impedance-pH ON PPIs where GERD is already established but symptoms persist on twice-daily PPI (both conditional, low). Before antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy, HRM is recommended to rule out achalasia and absent contractility, with provocative testing (e.g., multiple rapid swallows) to identify contractile reserve in ineffective esophageal motility; on-therapy reflux monitoring is suggested before intervention in patients with prior objective GERD findings who remain symptomatic. Antireflux surgery by an experienced surgeon is an option for patients with OBJECTIVE evidence of GERD, with severe esophagitis (LA C/D), large hiatal hernia, or persistent troublesome symptoms benefiting most; TIF is suggested only for troublesome regurgitation or heartburn in patients who do not wish to undergo antireflux surgery and who are WITHOUT severe esophagitis (LA C/D) or hiatal hernia >2 cm. For extraesophageal symptoms WITHOUT typical GERD symptoms, perform reflux testing BEFORE starting PPI therapy (strong, moderate); with concomitant typical symptoms, consider twice-daily PPI for 8-12 weeks before further testing (conditional, low). Lifestyle: weight loss in overweight/obese patients (strong, moderate); avoid meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoid tobacco, avoid trigger foods, and elevate the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms (all conditional, low).

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Nabi Z … Reddy DN · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=124 · Sep 17, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

EUS-Guided Cyanoacrylate Injection With Balloon-Compression Sclerotherapy Versus Band Ligation for Gastroesophageal Varices: A Randomized Trial.

New evidencevariceal bleedingendoscopy qualityEUS
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection combined with balloon-compression sclerotherapy (EUS-CYA + bc-EIS) over EUS-CYA + EVL for cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices, as it improves eradication and reduces treatment sessions, though the rebleeding difference was not statistically significant.
What it foundEUS-CYA + bc-EIS achieved 100% esophageal variceal eradication vs. 82.3% with EUS-CYA + EVL, with fewer sessions (1.4 vs. 2.1) and lower rebleeding (9.7% vs. 21.0%, p=0.081).
ContextRefines current practice: EUS-CYA + bc-EIS outperforms EUS-CYA + EVL in esophageal variceal eradication and session efficiency, with comparable safety, in cirrhotic patients with GOV.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition.

Decision at stakethe optimal endoscopic approach for concomitant esophageal varices during EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices

Perform upper endoscopy within 12 hours of presentation once resuscitated, or as soon as safely possible if the patient is unstable, with band ligation for esophageal varices and for GOV1 (which is treated as an esophageal varix); cardiofundal varices (GOV2 and IGV1) are treated with cyanoacrylate injection, with EUS-guided coil placement with or without cyanoacrylate increasingly used as first-line where expertise exists, and TIPS or BRTO as alternatives or salvage.

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

For acute variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, resuscitate conservatively with a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy targeting hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL, start a vasoactive agent as soon as bleeding is suspected and before endoscopy (terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide; octreotide is the agent available for this indication in US practice) and continue it 2-5 days, and give empiric IV ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Perform upper endoscopy within 12 hours of presentation once resuscitated, or as soon as safely possible if the patient is unstable, with band ligation for esophageal varices and for GOV1 (which is treated as an esophageal varix); cardiofundal varices (GOV2 and IGV1) are treated with cyanoacrylate injection, with EUS-guided coil placement with or without cyanoacrylate increasingly used as first-line where expertise exists, and TIPS or BRTO as alternatives or salvage. PPIs started empirically should be stopped immediately after endoscopy unless there is a separate strict indication. Evaluate every patient at presentation for pre-emptive (early) TIPS with a PTFE-covered stent, placed within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours, in high-risk patients defined as Child-Pugh class C with score under 14 (that is, 10-13) or Child-Pugh class B with score above 7 who have active bleeding at initial endoscopy despite vasoactive drugs; the decision is individualized and multidisciplinary, weighing age, frailty, comorbidity, heart failure, HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and transplant candidacy. For uncontrolled bleeding, a self-expanding covered esophageal metal stent is as effective as balloon tamponade and is the safer option; both are a bridge to definitive therapy (PTFE-covered TIPS) and neither is definitive therapy. Balloon tamponade must NOT be left in place for more than 24 hours, 24 hours is the ceiling, not a range: Baveno VI states it "should only be used in refractory oesophageal bleeding, as a temporary bridge (for a maximum of 24 h) with intensive care monitoring and considering intubation, until definitive treatment can be instituted", because severe esophageal injury/necrosis, perforation and aspiration rise sharply beyond that point. The 72-hour figure in this standard belongs to the pre-emptive TIPS window and must not be read as a permissible tamponade duration. Secondary prophylaxis is mandatory in all survivors and is combination therapy: a nonselective beta-blocker, either a traditional NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or carvedilol, which Baveno VII endorses as an equivalent rather than clearly superior option in this specific indication, plus serial EVL every 2 to 8 weeks until variceal eradication, with surveillance endoscopy thereafter. TIPS is the treatment of choice for patients who rebleed despite NSBB plus EVL.

AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition. · reviewed 2026-07-31 ↗
Yang X … Kong D · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,423 · Sep 15, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Patient-level predictors of safety and recurrence after cold versus hot snare resection of large, non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: an individual patient data meta-analysis of four randomised-controlled trials.

New evidencepolypectomyEMRmeta-analysiscolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayFor large non-pedunculated adenomas, prefer hot snare EMR over cold snare for lower recurrence, especially in high-grade dysplasia. Reserve cold snare for SSLs (2-4 cm) or high-risk patients (anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, multimorbidity) where safety outweighs recurrence risk, noting that further studies are needed for these populations.
What it foundCold snare resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps had fewer major adverse events (1.7% vs 5.9%, OR 0.26) but higher residual/recurrent adenoma rates (26.5% vs 12.8%, OR 2.61), especially in high-grade dysplasia (40.8% vs 18.0%, OR 2.88).
ContextConfirms cold snare is safer but with higher recurrence than hot EMR, refining prior evidence by quantifying the trade-off and identifying high-grade dysplasia as a key subgroup for recurrence risk.
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 stakechoosing cold versus hot snare resection for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

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 ↗
Steinbrück I … International Cold snare study group · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=6,568 · Sep 18, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Endoscopic Artificial Intelligence for Invasion-Depth Prediction in Superficial Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecomputer-aided detectionESDmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider AI as a second-reader tool for invasion-depth prediction in superficial upper GI cancers, but independent patient-level external validation is essential before clinical deployment due to validation-dependence.
What it foundAI for invasion-depth prediction in superficial upper GI cancers had pooled sensitivity 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) and specificity 0.88 (0.85-0.90), with higher sensitivity than unassisted endoscopists (82.5% vs. 63.8%; +18.7 percentage points; p = 0.013).
ContextThis meta-analysis confirms AI's potential to improve accuracy in predicting submucosal invasion, a critical step in ESD candidacy, but highlights validation-dependence and the need for further external validation.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakethe selection of candidates for endoscopic submucosal dissection in early esophageal cancer

PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative).

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 WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1), BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F) and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Lee H … Kim TJ · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=385 · Sep 18, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Long-term Outcomes After Endoscopic Resection for pMM/SM1 Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

New evidenceesophageal cancerEMR
Clinical takeawayConsider surveillance without additional treatment for LVI-negative post-ER pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, particularly for SCC lesions ≤30 mm with type 0-II appearance, which have a low metastatic recurrence rate of 2.9%. Monitor for second primary esophageal cancer, especially in SCC patients.
What it found5-year overall survival was 92.3% for SCC and 94.2% for EAC in post-ER pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, with metastatic recurrence rates of 6.3% for pMM and 10.5% for pSM1 SCC. LVI-negative SCC lesions ≤30 mm with type 0-II appearance had a low metastatic recurrence rate of 2.9%. The 5-year cumulative incidence of second primary esophageal cancer was 25.8% for SCC and 3.6% for EAC.
ContextConfirms and refines prior evidence supporting surveillance for LVI-negative pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer, identifying low-risk SCC subgroups with minimal metastatic recurrence but highlighting the risk of second primary esophageal cancer.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakethe management of post-endoscopic resection pMM/SM1 esophageal cancer

Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion.

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 WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1), BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F) and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ishihara R … Oyama T · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=679 · Sep 18, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Fatty Pancreas and the Association Between Pancreatic Manipulation Burden and Post-ERCP Pancreatitis.

New evidenceERCPacute pancreatitispancreatic cancerbiomarker
Clinical takeawayFurther research is needed to determine if pre-ERCP CT assessment for fatty pancreas and tailored procedural strategies can reduce pancreatitis risk in high-risk patients.
What it foundFatty pancreas (pancreas-to-spleen attenuation ratio <0.7) increased post-ERCP pancreatitis risk (adjusted OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.27-3.73), and pancreatic manipulation burden score had a stronger effect in fatty pancreas (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.52-2.84) vs non-fatty pancreas (adjusted OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.98-1.68).
ContextConfirms fatty pancreas as a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests it modifies the effect of pancreatic manipulation burden, refining prior evidence on procedural risk factors. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakereduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk

Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk.

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

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Liu Y … Li X · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=170 · Sep 20, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Heparin Wet Suction Versus Conventional Suction in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Multicenter Randomized Crossover Study.

New evidenceEUSpancreatic cancerendoscopy qualitybiomarker
Clinical takeawayNo need to switch from conventional suction to heparin wet suction for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses: both techniques perform equally well.
What it foundDiagnostic yield was 82.9% with heparin wet suction (HWST) vs 83.5% with conventional suction (CST), a non-significant difference (95% CI -6.7 to 5.5). Combined yield after sequential sampling was 91.2%.
ContextHWST was proposed to improve tissue quality by reducing blood clots, but this trial found no advantage over standard suction in diagnostic yield, technical success, or IHC adequacy.
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.

Chon HK … Lee SH · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=1,830 · Sep 17, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Diagnostic performance of the Japan Narrow-Band Imaging Expert Team and pit pattern classifications for small polyps using next-generation endoscopy.

New evidencecolonoscopypolypectomycomputer-aided detectionadenoma
Clinical takeawayConsider using JNET classification for optical diagnosis of small colorectal lesions (<10 mm) in routine practice, as it performs consistently across endoscopist expertise levels.
What it foundJNET showed similar diagnostic performance across expertise levels (sensitivity, specificity, NPV) compared to pit pattern classification, which had 5.01 percentage points lower sensitivity (95% CI, 1.23-9.08) and 10.00 percentage points lower NPV (95% CI, 1.37-18.56) in non-experts vs experts.
ContextConfirms JNET as a reliable tool for optical diagnosis of small colorectal lesions (<10 mm), reducing reliance on endoscopist expertise compared to pit pattern classification. Exploratory analysis suggests greater variability in pit pattern classification performance based on expertise.
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.

Sakamoto T … Saito Y · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=12,345 · Sep 15, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Endoscopist Adherence to Post-polypectomy Surveillance Interval Recommendations Following Removal of 1-4 Non-advanced Adenomas.

New evidencecolonoscopypolypectomyguidelinehealth services
Clinical takeawayAudit your own post-polypectomy surveillance intervals for 1-2 NAAs, where over-surveillance is more likely compared to 3-4 NAAs, and align with the guideline-recommended 7-10-year interval.
What it foundAdherence to the 7-10-year surveillance interval for 1-2 non-advanced adenomas (NAAs) improved from 68.1% in 2021 to 71.9% in 2024, while adherence to the 3-5-year interval for 3-4 NAAs remained >90%. Endoscopists predominantly assigned the upper or lower bounds of the interval ranges (10 years for 1-2 NAAs, 5 years for 3-4 NAAs).
ContextConfirms persistent underuse of guideline-recommended longer intervals for low-risk adenomas (1-2 NAAs), despite 2020 updates, with higher adherence for 3-4 NAAs.
Reinforcessuggested 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 stakeassigning the correct surveillance interval after removal of 1-4 non-advanced adenomas

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 ↗
Hendel JM … Lee JK · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=239 · Sep 14, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage with or without prior percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

New evidenceEUSERCPbiliary strictureendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider primary EUS-GBD for surgically unfit patients with acute cholecystitis when clinically stable and anatomically feasible, as it offers shorter procedure times (8.4 vs. 12.9 minutes) without compromising success or recurrence rates. Conversion EUS-GBD remains a valid internalization option after PTGBD, though it may have slightly higher late adverse events.
What it foundProcedural success was high in both primary EUS-GBD (95.6%) and conversion EUS-GBD (93.2%), with no significant difference in recurrence (2.9% vs. 0%) or late adverse events (4.1% vs. 7.3%).
ContextConfirms that both primary and conversion EUS-GBD are effective for gallbladder drainage in surgically unfit patients, refining the choice based on clinical stability, procedural efficiency, and adverse event profiles.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019

Decision at stakechoosing a gallbladder drainage strategy for non-surgical candidates with acute cholecystitis

Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

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

For right upper quadrant pain, characterize the pattern (acute vs chronic, post-meal vs unrelated, with vs without fever/jaundice) and triage acute red-flag presentations (Murphy sign, Charcot's triad, painless jaundice with weight loss, pregnancy with LFT/coagulation derangement) to the ED. Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Kim SH … Oh D · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=652 · Sep 15, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Risk Stratification Model for Surveillance Interval Extension After Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colon Polyps.

New evidencepolypectomyEMRcolorectal cancer screeningbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider extending surveillance intervals beyond 6 months for hot EMR of LNPCPs ≥20mm when all four low-risk features are present (no prior resection, margin ablation done, no villous histology, no ICV involvement), pending prospective validation.
What it foundA 4-factor model (prior resection, no margin ablation, villous histology, ICV involvement) stratified recurrence risk after hot EMR: low-risk polyps had 2.2% recurrence at 6 months compared to 10.6% in high-risk polyps, 5.4% vs 23.1% at 12 months, and 9.7% vs 28.1% at 18 months.
ContextChallenges current uniform 6-month surveillance by identifying a low-risk subgroup with <10% recurrence at 18 months, though prospective validation is needed before guideline changes.
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.

Garg K … Singh A · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=81 · Sep 18, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Efficacy and safety of novel VAC-Stent in management of upper gastrointestinal post-surgical leaks: results from a large multicenter study in tertiary referral centers.

New therapyERCP
Clinical takeawayConsider VAC-Stent for post-surgical upper GI leaks in tertiary centers where combined SEMS/EVT capability exists, weighing against standard SEMS or EVT alone.
What it foundVAC-Stent achieved complete healing in 85.3% of patients (64/75) with upper GI post-surgical leaks (vs historical SEMS/EVT outcomes), with successful deployment in 100% of cases (150/150) and 1 late bleeding event managed conservatively.
ContextRetrospective multicenter study of 81 patients with post-surgical UGI leaks (mean defect size 19.6 ± 18.2 mm) treated with novel SEMS-EVT hybrid device.
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.

Zito FP … Lombardi G · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=100 · Sep 15, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

The yield of artificial intelligence (GI genius) in Lynch syndrome -A randomized tandem-colonoscopy trial.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecolonoscopyLynch syndromepolypectomy
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: AI-assisted colonoscopy did not significantly improve adenoma detection in Lynch syndrome patients compared to HD-WLE in this small trial.
What it foundAI-assisted colonoscopy showed a higher incremental adenoma detection rate (IDR) of 33.3% compared to HD-WLE's 11.1% in Lynch syndrome patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 4.0, 95% CI 0.68-23.40, p=0.124).
ContextChallenges prior evidence that AI-assisted colonoscopy improves adenoma detection in the general population, suggesting Lynch syndrome patients may not benefit similarly. The study's small sample size and single-center design limit generalizability.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11).

Decision at stakethe use of colonoscopy for surveillance in Lynch syndrome

CLASSIC FAP, annual sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy beginning at puberty; colectomy indicated for documented/suspected cancer or significant symptoms (absolute), or for relative indications such as multiple adenomas >6 mm or a significant increase in adenoma number that make endoscopic control unfeasible; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound.

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

All patients meeting clinical criteria for, or carrying a pathogenic germline variant of, a hereditary GI cancer syndrome should have pre- and post-test genetic counseling, and at-risk first-degree relatives should be offered genetic testing. Syndrome-specific surveillance: LYNCH SYNDROME, colonoscopy at least every 2 years (annual colonoscopy should be considered in confirmed mutation carriers), beginning at age 20-25 years, or 2-5 years before the earliest CRC diagnosis in the family if that was before age 25; baseline EGD with gastric biopsy and test-and-treat for H. pylori at age 30-35, with ongoing upper-GI surveillance every 3-5 years where family history of gastric/duodenal cancer exists; annual endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound from age 30-35, with prophylactic hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offered after childbearing; surveillance BEYOND population-based recommendations for the urinary tract, pancreas, breast and prostate is NOT recommended unless supported by family history. CLASSIC FAP, annual sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy beginning at puberty; colectomy indicated for documented/suspected cancer or significant symptoms (absolute), or for relative indications such as multiple adenomas >6 mm or a significant increase in adenoma number that make endoscopic control unfeasible; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound. AFAP, surveillance by colonoscopy (not sigmoidoscopy, as polyps are right-sided) with polypectomy every 1-2 years, beginning in the late teens to early 20s; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). MUTYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS (biallelic MUTYH), colonoscopy every 1-2 years beginning at age 25-30; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). SERRATED POLYPOSIS SYNDROME, colonoscopy every 1-3 years with attempted removal of all polyps >5 mm.

American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ido L … Offir U · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №12 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS