As medical treatments advance, drug-induced liver injury (DILI) becomes more prevalent, occurring at a rate of 14 to 19 cases per 100,000 individuals. We present a unique case of a female patient with Crohn's disease developing autoimmune-like hepatitis during infliximab treatment. Autoimmune-like hepatitis can pose diagnostic challenges when distinguishing it from idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis. The diagnostic journey, including the absence of distinct pathognomonic criteria, is discussed. The only discriminative factor observed was the absence of relapse in autoimmune-like hepatitis patients after discontinuation of immuno-suppressive therapy. The case highlights the importance of recognizing this adverse event in clinical practice and underscores the challenges in balancing the benefits and risks of powerful immunomodulatory agents.

At a population level, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) suggest endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (and precancerous conditions) in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate [ASR] > 20 per 100 000 person-years) every 2 to 3 years or, if cost-effectiveness has been proven, in intermediate risk regions (ASR 10-20 per 100 000 person-years) every 5 years, but not in low-risk regions (ASR < 10).ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that irrespective of country of origin, individual gastric risk assessment and stratification of precancerous conditions is recommended for first-time gastroscopy. ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80 should be discontinued or not started, and that patients' comorbidities should be considered when treatment of superficial lesions is planned.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that a high quality endoscopy including the use of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, is performed for screening, diagnosis, and staging of precancerous conditions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) and lesions (dysplasia or cancer), as well as after endoscopic therapy. VCE should be used to guide the sampling site for biopsies in the case of suspected neoplastic lesions as well as to guide biopsies for diagnosis and staging of gastric precancerous conditions, with random biopsies to be taken in the absence of endoscopically suspected changes. When there is a suspected early gastric neoplastic lesion, it should be properly described (location, size, Paris classification, vascular and mucosal pattern), photodocumented, and two targeted biopsies taken.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP do not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection unless there are signs of deep submucosal invasion or if the lesion is not considered suitable for endoscopic resection.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for differentiated gastric lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low grade and high grade) or as intramucosal carcinoma (of any size if not ulcerated or ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR being an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions of size ≤ 10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that a decision about ESD can be considered for malignant lesions clinically staged as having minimal submucosal invasion if differentiated and ≤ 30 mm; or for malignant lesions clinically staged as intramucosal, undifferentiated and ≤ 20 mm; and in both cases with no ulcerative findings.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommends patient management based on the following histological risk after endoscopic resection: Curative/very low-risk resection (lymph node metastasis [LNM] risk < 0.5 %-1 %): en bloc R0 resection; dysplastic/pT1a, differentiated lesion, no lymphovascular invasion, independent of size if no ulceration and ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated. No further staging procedure or treatment is recommended.Curative/low-risk resection (LNM risk < 3 %): en bloc R0 resection; lesion with no lymphovascular invasion and: a) pT1b, invasion ≤ 500 µm, differentiated, size ≤ 30 mm; or b) pT1a, undifferentiated, size ≤ 20 mm and no ulceration. Staging should be completed, and further treatment is generally not necessary, but a multidisciplinary discussion is required. Local-risk resection (very low risk of LNM but increased risk of local persistence/recurrence): Piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting curative/very low-risk criteria (or meeting low-risk criteria provided that there is no submucosal invasive tumor at the resection margin in the case of piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin for pT1b lesions [invasion ≤ 500 µm; well-differentiated; size ≤ 30 mm, and VM0]). Endoscopic surveillance/re-treatment is recommended rather than other additional treatment. High-risk resection (noncurative): Any lesion with any of the following: (a) a positive vertical margin (if carcinoma) or lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion (> 500 µm from the muscularis mucosae); (b) poorly differentiated lesions if ulceration or size > 20 mm; (c) pT1b differentiated lesions with submucosal invasion ≤ 500 µm with size > 30 mm; or (d) intramucosal ulcerative lesion with size > 30 mm. Complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments (surgery) in multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest the use of validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e. g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e. g. endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia [EGGIM]) to endoscopically stage precancerous conditions and stratify the risk for gastric cancer.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (2 biopsies from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, guided by VCE) in two separate, clearly labeled vials. Additional biopsy from the incisura is optional.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3 + or EGGIM 5 +) or advanced histological stages of atrophic gastritis (severe atrophic changes or intestinal metaplasia, or changes in both antrum and corpus, operative link on gastritis assessment/operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia [OLGA/OLGIM] III/IV) should be followed up with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of the individual's country of origin.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that no surveillance is proposed for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection). This group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend H. pylori eradication for patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients should be advised to stop smoking and low-dose daily aspirin use may be considered for the prevention of gastric cancer in selected individuals with high risk for cardiovascular events.

Gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) are common and include atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and certain gastric epithelial polyps. GPMC have an increased risk of progression to gastric adenocarcinoma. Gastric cancer (GC) in the United States represents an important cancer disparity because incidence rates are 2- to 13-fold greater in non-White individuals, particularly early-generation immigrants from regions of high GC incidence. The US 5-year survival rate for GC is 36%, which falls short of global standards and is driven by the fact that only a small percentage of GC in the US is diagnosed in the early, curable stage. This document represents the first iteration of American College of Gastroenterology guidelines on this topic and encompasses endoscopic surveillance for high-risk patients with GPMC, the performance of high-quality endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy for diagnosis and surveillance, GPMC histology criteria and reporting, endoscopic treatment of dysplasia, the role of Helicobacter pylori eradication, general risk reduction measures, and the management of autoimmune gastritis and gastric epithelial polyps. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on upper endoscopic screening for GC/GPMC detection in US populations deemed high-risk for GC. Surveillance endoscopy is recommended for individuals at high risk for GPMC progression, as defined by endoscopic, histologic, and demographic factors, typically every 3 years, but an individualized interval may be warranted. H. pylori testing, treatment, and eradication confirmation are recommended in all individuals with GPMC. Extensive high-quality data from US populations regarding GPMC management are lacking, but continue to accrue, and the quality of evidence for the recommendations presented herein should be interpreted with this dynamic context in mind. The GPMC research and education agendas are broad and include high-quality prospective studies evaluating opportunistic endoscopic screening for GC/GPMC, refined delineation of what constitutes "high-risk" populations, development of novel biomarkers, alignment of best practices, implementation of training programs for improved GPMC/GC detection, and evaluation of the impact of these interventions on GC incidence and mortality in the US.

Quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy is a major determinant of its effectiveness. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance quality monitoring and improve endoscopy outcomes. This article reviews the current literature on AI algorithms that have been developed for endoscopy quality assessment.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) formulated performance measures to improve the detection rate for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. We aimed to assess adherence to and impact of training on adherence to performance measures for UGI endoscopy.

In this multicenter, prospective, cohort study, endoscopists at three centers underwent 1-hour face-to-face training based on ESGE and BSG procedure performance measures (≥ 7-minute inspection time; photodocumentation of ≥ 10 anatomical landmarks + abnormalities; standardized terminology; biopsy protocols). A self-developed quality assessment score was used to assess diagnostic UGI endoscopies before (control group) and after (intervention group) training. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall quality score (percentage of the maximum score).

Of 1,733 consecutive UGI endoscopies, 570 were eligible for inclusion (mean patient age 60 years [standard deviation 15]; male 47%): 285 in the control group and 285 in the intervention group. Overall quality score increased from 60% before to 67% after the training intervention (difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5-10, P < 0.001). Male patients (3.2%, 95% CI 0.7-5.7), alarming features (-3.1%, 95% CI -5.6 to -0.5), and endoscopist age (-0.4% increment per year, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.1) were associated with higher quality scores.

Adherence to the ESGE and BSG procedure performance measures for UGI endoscopy persistently increased after a 1-hour face-to-face training intervention, suggesting that a simple training intervention tool can improve the quality of UGI endoscopy and potentially could prevent missed lesions.

A full examination of gastrointestinal tract is an essential prerequisite for effectively detecting gastrointestinal lesions. However, there is a lack of efficient tools to analyze and recognize gastric anatomy locations, preventing the complete portrayal of entire stomach. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in identifying gastric anatomy sites by analyzing esophagogastroduodenoscopy images.

Using endoscopic images, we proposed a system called the Artificial Intelligence of Medicine (AIMED) through convolutional neural networks and MobileNetV3-large. The performance of artificial intelligence in the recognition of anatomic sites in esophagogastroduodenoscopy images was evaluated by considering many cases. Primary outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

A total of 160,308 images from 27 categories of the upper endoscopy anatomy classification were included in this retrospective research. As a test group, 16031 esophagogastroduodenoscopy images with 27 categories were used to evaluate AIMED's performance in identifying gastric anatomy sites. The convolutional neural network's accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined to be 99.40%, 91.85%, and 99.69%, respectively.

The AIMED system achieved high accuracy with regard to recognizing gastric anatomy sites, and it could assist the operator in enhancing the quality control of the used endoscope. Moreover, it could contribute to a more standardized endoscopic performance. Overall, our findings prove that artificial-intelligence-based systems can be indispensable to the endoscopic revolution (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04384575 (12/05/2020)).

During gastroscopy, accurately identifying the anatomical locations of the gastrointestinal tract is crucial for developing diagnostic aids, such as lesion localization and blind spot alerts.

This study utilized a dataset of 31,403 still images from 1000 patients with normal findings to annotate the anatomical locations within the images and develop a classification model. The model was then applied to videos of 20 esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures, where it was validated for real-time location prediction. To address instability of predictions caused by independent frame-by-frame assessment, we implemented a hard-voting-based post-processing algorithm that aggregates results from seven consecutive frames, improving the overall accuracy.

Among the tested models, InceptionV3 demonstrated superior performance for still images, achieving an F1 score of 79.79%, precision of 80.57%, and recall of 80.08%. For video data, the InceptionResNetV2 model performed best, achieving an F1 score of 61.37%, precision of 73.08%, and recall of 57.21%. These results indicate that the deep learning models not only achieved high accuracy in position recognition for still images but also performed well on video data. Additionally, the post-processing algorithm effectively stabilized the predictions, highlighting its potential for real-time endoscopic applications.

This study demonstrates the feasibility of predicting the gastrointestinal tract locations during gastroscopy and suggests a promising path for the development of advanced diagnostic aids to assist clinicians. Furthermore, the location information generated by this model can be leveraged in future technologies, such as automated report generation and supporting follow-up examinations for patients.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a fundamental procedure for early detection of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. However, limited research has been conducted on the impact of sedation during EGD on the identification of precancerous lesions and early cancer (EC). This retrospective study aims to evaluate whether sedation during EGD can improve the detection rates of precancerous lesions and EC.

In this propensity score-matched retrospective study, we examined medical records from outpatients who underwent diagnostic EGD at a large tertiary center between January 2023 and December 2023. Data on endoscopic findings and histology biopsies were obtained from an endoscopy quality-control system. The primary objective was to compare the rates of detecting precancerous lesions and EC in patients who received sedation during EGD vs. those who did not receive sedation. Additionally, we aimed to identify factors influencing these detection rates using binary logistic regression analysis.

Following propensity score matching, a total of 17,862 patients who underwent diagnostic EGD with or without propofol sedation were identified. The group that received sedation exhibited a higher detection rate of precancerous lesions and EC in comparison to the non-sedated group (1.04 vs. 0.75%; p = 0.039). Additionally, within the sedated group, there was an increased likelihood of identifying precancerous lesions and EC specifically at the gastric antrum (0.60 vs. 0.32%, p = 0.006). Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that independent risk factors influencing the detection rates included age, gender, observation time, and number of biopsies conducted during the procedure.

Anesthesia assistance during EGD screening proved advantageous in detecting EC as well as precancerous lesions. It is crucial for endoscopists to consider these factors when performing EGD screening procedures.

Gastric cancer remains a disease with an ominous prognosis, while early gastric cancer has a good-to-excellent prognosis, with 5-year survival rates of up to 92.6% after successful endoscopic resection. In this context, the accurate identification of patients with established gastric precancerous lesions, namely chronic atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia, is the first step in a stepwise approach to minimize cancer risk. Although current guidelines advocate for the execution of random biopsies to stage the extent and severity of gastritis/intestinal metaplasia, modern biopsy protocols are still imperfect as they have limited reproducibility and are susceptible to sampling error. The advent of novel imaging-enhancing modalities, i.e., high-definition with virtual chromoendoscopy (CE), has revolutionized the inspection of gastric mucosa, leading to an endoscopy-based staging strategy for the management of these premalignant changes in the stomach. Nowadays, the incorporation of CE-targeted biopsies in everyday clinical practice offers not only the robust detection of premalignant lesions but also an improvement in quality, by reducing missed diagnoses along with mean biopsies and, thus, the procedural costs and the environmental footprint. In this review, we summarize the recent evidence regarding the endoscopic grading and sampling of gastric precancerous lesions.

Cleanliness of the mucosa of the upper GI (UGI) tract is critical for performing a high-quality EGD. The aim of this study was to validate a recently developed UGI cleanliness scale (the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy [PEACE] system) in the detection of clinically significant lesions (CSLs) in the UGI tract.

Patients who underwent a complete diagnostic EGD were prospectively enrolled from August 2021 to October 2022. The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) cleanliness was scored from 0 to 3 for each segment. The primary outcomes were the detection of CSLs and PEACE scores.

Of 995 patients enrolled from 5 centers, adequate cleanliness (AQ; all scores ≥2) was found in 929 patients. In multivariate regression analysis, AQ was associated with the number of diagnosed CSLs (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.01; P = .03). Other factors related to CSL detection were duration of EGD (OR, 1.29, 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001), male sex (OR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; P = .025), and EGD indication (dyspepsia, alarm symptoms, gastritis surveillance, other indications vs GERD) (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.31-0.6, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.67, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P = .004], and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001], respectively). Twenty-seven patients were diagnosed with UGI neoplasia, all in patients with adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract.

Adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract as assessed with the PEACE system was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CSLs during EGD. The relationship of this scale with UGI neoplasia detection warrants further investigation.

We aimed to identify quality indicator for esophagogastroduodenoscopy for detecting upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Data from 43,526 consecutive health checkups from August 2012 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected. The study ultimately analyzed 42,387 examinations by 12 endoscopists who performed more than 1000 examinations, including all cancers detected. These endoscopists were classified either into fast/slow group based on their mean examination time for a normal finding of esophagogastroduodenoscopy during their first year of the examination, or small/large group based on number of endoscopic images, respectively. The association between UGI cancer detection rate and examination time or the number of images was analyzed, using 5 minutes or 50 images as cutoff values. The detection rate of overall (8 pharyngeal, 39 esophageal, 69 gastric) cancers in the fast, slow, small, and large groups were 0.17%, 0.32%, 0.21%, and 0.31%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, endoscopists in the fast group or the small group were less likely to detect overall UGI cancer (OR: 0.596, 95% CI: 0.373-0.952, P = .030; OR: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.434-0.979, P = .039). Additionally, repeated endoscopy within 2 years had a higher overall cancer detection rate, compared with repeated screening after 2 years. In a sub-analysis, a significant negative relationship was found between the detection rate of gastric cancer and the number of gastric images < 35 (OR: 0.305, 95% CI: 0.189-0.492, P = .000). There was also a negative correlation trend between the detection rate of pharyngeal and esophageal cancers and the number of esophageal images < 11 (OR: 0.395, 95% CI: 0.156-1.001, P = .050). The optimal number of images and screening 2-year interval are considered useful quality indicators for detecting UGI cancer. This study also suggests that a total of 50 images, or 35 images of the stomach are suitable for detecting UGI cancer, or gastric cancer, during screening endoscopy.

Missed early gastric cancer (MEGC) is prevalent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), which is the first-line recommended strategy for detecting early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, we explored the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC, based on the endoscopic resected population.

This retrospective, case-control study was conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (NJDTH). We included patients who were diagnosed with EGC during screening EGD, underwent endoscopic resection, and were confirmed by postoperative pathology at the NJDTH from January 2014 to December 2021, and classified them into different types according to the different root causes of misses. Univariable, multivariable, subgroup and propensity score analyses were used to explore the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC.

A total of 447 patients, comprising 345 with initially detected early gastric cancer (IDEGC) and 102 with MEGC, were included in this study. Larger size (≥ 1 cm) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.74, P = 0.002) and invasion depth of submucosa (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.69, P = 0.007) were negatively associated with MEGC. Use of sedation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.52, P < 0.001) and longer observation time (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96, P = 0.034) exhibited protective effect on MEGC.

Smaller and more superficial EGC lesions are more susceptible to misdiagnosis. The use of sedation and prolonged observation time during EGD could help reduce the occurrence of MEGC.

Quality indicators for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy are well established and linked to patient outcomes. However, there is a perceived gap in the development and implementation of quality indicators for small bowel endoscopy. In this review, we aimed to discuss the development of quality indicators in small bowel endoscopy and their implementation in clinical practice.

The proposed quality indicators for small bowel endoscopy focus on process measures, which mainly evaluate the procedural aspects, rather than the outcomes or the overall patient experience. These quality indicators have rarely been studied in clinical practice, leading to a limited understanding of their applicability and impact on patient outcomes and experience.

Real-world studies evaluating the quality indicators of small bowel endoscopy are warranted to establish an evidence-based framework for their practical application and effectiveness. Linking these indicators to relevant patient outcomes is crucial for their broader acceptance and implementation.

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in the digestive system in China. Few comprehensive practice guidelines for early gastric cancer in China are currently available. Therefore, we created the Chinese national clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer.

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization's recommended process and with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in assessing evidence quality. We used the Evidence to Decision framework to formulate clinical recommendations to minimize bias and increase transparency in the CPG development process. We used the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) as reporting and conduct guidelines to ensure completeness and transparency of the CPG.

This CPG contains 40 recommendations regarding the prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer based on available clinical studies and guidelines. We provide recommendations for the timing of Helicobacter pylori eradication, screening populations for early gastric cancer, indications for endoscopic resection and surgical gastrectomy, follow-up interval after treatment, and other recommendations.

This CPG can lead to optimum care for patients and populations by providing up-to-date medical information. We intend this CPG for widespread adoption to increase the standard of prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer; thereby, contributing to improving national health care and patient quality of life.

Endoscopy could help detect early gastric cancer (EGC) and improve the prognosis of patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of endoscopy and endoscopic surveillance on the early detection of gastric cancer (GC), GC staging, and treatment selection.

Patients with GC diagnosed at our center from 2010 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and allocated to the short-interval group (had received endoscopy within 3 years before diagnosis), the long-interval group (had received endoscopy more than 3 years before diagnosis), and the unchecked group (had not received endoscopy before diagnosis). The differences in GC staging and treatment modalities among the three groups were analyzed, and the differences in the clinical and pathological features of EGC were further analyzed.

One thousand and twenty-five GC patients were included, with 395 cases of EGC and 630 cases of advanced GC. The proportions of EGC in the short-interval, long-interval, and unchecked groups were 98.0%, 84.2%, and 29.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Among the 387 lesions of 367 EGC patients were resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), 341 (88.1%) exhibited curative resection, and 46 (11.9%) involved noncurative resections. Lesions of EGC differed significantly in diameter, depth of invasion, and curative resection rate (p = 0.033, 0.019, and 0.005, respectively). In the short-interval group, 87.8% of the lesions were ≤ 2 cm, 95.6% of the invasion depths were confined to the mucosal layer, and 96.7% of the eCura scores were A or B. Compared with the unchecked group, they had smaller diameters (RR = 0.419, 95% CI 0.234-0.752), shallower invasion depths (RR = 0.286, 95% CI 0.105-0.777), and a higher curative resection rate (RR = 0.215, 95% CI 0.068-0.676).

Endoscopic surveillance at 3-year intervals can help detect EGC, and the EGC lesions found have smaller diameters and shallower depths of invasion, helping improve the curative resection rate of ESD.

According to the guideline published by ESGE/UEG, a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) implies the application of some criteria that enable better healthcare outcomes. Although intra-procedural performance measures are dependent on patient factors, there is no reference to sedation practices in the guideline mentioned above.

This study aimed to evaluate whether deep sedation influences EGD performance measures established by ESGE/UEG.

This was a cross-sectional study, with a prospective enrollment, that considered for inclusion consecutive patients referred for EGD. Two questionnaires were used to assess performance measures and patient satisfaction after EGD.

Sedation had a statistically significant impact on most quality indicators, including complete examination (77.2% without sedation vs. 97.8% with sedation), inspection time (6.17 ± 3.45 vs. 8.39 ± 2.67 min), photodocumentation (78% vs. 97.8%), biopsies (39.3% vs. 60.7%), and patient satisfaction (5.42 ± 2.93 vs. 9.1 ± 1.19). The main reason for an incomplete procedure was patient intolerance (82.6%).

Deep sedation of patients submitted to EGD proved to be a determinant in the applicability of the ESGE/UEG quality indicators. Patient intolerance was eliminated in the group with sedation, enhancing procedure completeness, adequate pathology identification, management, and consequently, the effectiveness of the exam.

Sedation administration should be considered in patients undergoing EGD since it ensures a high-quality procedure.

Current studies have shown that longer observation time can improve neoplastic detection rate. This study aimed to clarify whether endoscopists with longer observation times can detect more focal lesions.

Based on the mean examination time for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) without biopsy, endoscopists were divided into fast and slow groups, and the detection rate of focal lesions was compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis, multivariate analysis and restricted cubic spline were used to explore the factors of focal lesion detection rate.

Mean examination time of EGD without biopsy was 4.5 min. The cut-off times used were 5 min. 17 endoscopists were classified into the fast (4.7 ± 3.6 min), and 16 into the slow (7.11 ± 4.6 min) groups. Compared with fast endoscopists, slow endoscopists had a higher detection rate of focal lesions (47.2% vs. 51.4%, P < 0.001), especially in the detection of gastric lesions (29.7% vs. 35.9%, P < 0.001). In univariate and multivariate analyses, observation time, patient age and gender, expert, biopsy rate, and number of images were factors in FDR. There is a nonlinear relationship between observation time and FDR.

Longer examination time improves the detection rate of focal lesions. Observation time is an important quality indicator of the EGD examination.

No protocol for esophagogastroduodenoscopic examination of the duodenum has been established. We examined the feasibility and ability to detect neoplasms of a novel duodenal examination protocol.

This was a two-facility, prospective, observational study. Our protocol, the Seven Pictures Rule (7PR), requires pictures of the following seven locations: anterior and posterior to the bulb, area of and contralateral to the superior duodenal angle, area of and contralateral to the ampulla, and the transverse duodenum. The primary outcome was rate of completion of 7PR. Secondary outcomes were overall rates of detecting neoplasms, rates of detecting neoplasms for each location, examination time, and completion rates for standard or ultrathin endoscopes.

There were 1549 participants. The 7PR completion rate was 81.1% and the detection rates of overall neoplasms, adenomas, and carcinomas were 0.84%, 0.71%, and 0.06%, respectively. The area in which most neoplasms was detected was contralateral to the ampulla (69.2%), and the fewest the transverse duodenum (0%). Mean duration of duodenal examination was 53.1 s. Completion rates for standard vs. ultrathin were 84.4% (1077/1276) vs. 65.6% (179/273) (P < 0.01), respectively.

Seven Pictures Rule is acceptable for duodenal examination and a potential quality indicator.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is being implemented in countries with a high incidence of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. High-quality EGD screening ensures the yield of early diagnosis and prevents suffering from advanced UGI cancer and minimal operational-related discomfort. However, performance varied dramatically among endoscopists, and quality control for EGD screening remains suboptimal. Guidelines have recommended potential measures for endoscopy quality improvement and research has been conducted for evidence. Moreover, artificial intelligence offers a promising solution for computer-aided diagnosis and quality control during EGD examinations. In this review, we summarized the key points for quality assurance in EGD screening based on current guidelines and evidence. We also outline the latest evidence, limitations, and future prospects of the emerging role of artificial intelligence in EGD quality control, aiming to provide a foundation for improving the quality of EGD screening.

Flexible endoscopy (FE) plays a major role in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disease. Although its intraoperative use has spread over the years, its use by surgeons is still limited in our setting. FE training opportunities are different among many institutions, specialties, and countries. Intraoperative endoscopy (IOE) presents peculiarities that increase its complexity compared to standard FE. IOE has a positive impact on surgical results, due to increased safety and quality, as well as a reduction in the complications. Due to its innumerable advantages, its intraoperative use by surgeons is currently a current project in many countries and is part of the near future in others because of the creation of better structured training projects. This manuscript reviews and updates the indications and uses of intraoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in esophagogastric surgery.

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.

GIM is a persistent, premalignant lesion whereby gastric mucosa is replaced by metaplastic mucosa resembling intestinal tissue, arising in the setting of chronic inflammation, particularly in the context of Helicobacter pylori. While the overall rates of progression to gastric adenocarcinoma are low, estimated at from 0.25 to 2.5%, there are features that confer a much higher risk and warrant follow-up. In this review, we collate and summarise the current knowledge regarding the pathogenesis of GIM, and the clinical, endoscopic and histologic risk factors for cancer. We examine the current state-of-practice with regard to the diagnosis and management of GIM, which varies widely in the published guidelines and in practice. We consider the emerging evidence in population studies, artificial intelligence and molecular markers, which will guide future models of care. The ultimate goal is to increase the detection of early gastric dysplasia/neoplasia that can be cured while avoiding unnecessary surveillance in very low-risk individuals.

Positive correlation between examination time and neoplasm detection using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been described by observational studies, but the effect of setting minimal examination time still requires investigation.

This prospective, 2-stage, interventional study was conducted in 7 tertiary hospitals in China, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing intravenously sedated diagnostic EGDs. In stage I, the baseline examination time was collected without informing the endoscopists. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set for the same endoscopist according to the median examination time of normal EGDs in stage I. The primary outcome was the focal lesion detection rate (FDR), defined as the proportion of subjects with at least one focal lesion among all subjects.

A total of 847 and 1,079 EGDs performed by 21 endoscopists were included in stages I and II, respectively. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set as 6 minutes, and the median time for normal EGD increased from 5.8 to 6.3 minutes ( P < 0.001). Between the 2 stages, the FDR was significantly improved (33.6% vs 39.3%, P = 0.011), and the effect of the intervention was significant (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52; P = 0.022) even after adjusting for subjects' age, smoking status, endoscopists' baseline examination time, and working experience. The detection rate of high-risk lesions (neoplastic lesions and advanced atrophic gastritis) was also significantly higher in stage II (3.3% vs 5.4%, P = 0.029). In the endoscopist-level analysis, all practitioners reached a median examination time of 6 minutes, and the coefficients of variation of FDR (36.9%-26.2%) and examination time (19.6%-6.9%) decreased in stage II.

Setting a 6-minute minimal examination time significantly improved the detection of focal lesions during EGDs and has the potential to be implemented for quality improvement.

Early detection and management of gastric adenoma are important for preventing gastric cancer. The present study aimed to evaluate the predictors of missed gastric adenoma on screening endoscopy in Korea and identify the risk factors associated with interval precancerous gastric lesions.

All cases of gastric adenomas diagnosed via screening endoscopy between 2007 and 2019 were reviewed. Among them, those who had undergone endoscopy within 3 years were included in the present study. Missed gastric adenoma was defined as gastric adenoma diagnosed within 3 years after negative screening endoscopy.

In total, 295 cases of gastric adenoma were identified. Of these, 95 (32.2%) were missed gastric adenoma cases (mean age, 60.6 years; average interval between final and index endoscopies, 12.6 months); the remaining 200 (67.8%) were newly detected adenoma cases. Univariate analysis revealed that male sex, endoscopist experience, observation time, and presence of gastric intestinal metaplasia (pathologically proven) were associated with missed gastric adenoma. Multivariate analysis revealed that gastric intestinal metaplasia (odds ratio [OR], 2.736; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.320-5.667; P = 0.007) and shorter observation time of the index screening endoscopy (B, -0.011; OR, 0.990; 95% CI, 0.986-0.993; P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for missed gastric adenoma. The optimal cut-off for the observation time for detecting gastric adenoma was 3.53 minutes (area under curve, 0.738; 95% CI, 0.677-0.799; P < 0.001).

Gastric intestinal metaplasia is an indication of missed gastric adenoma. Therefore, careful inspection of gastric mucosa with gastric intestinal metaplasia and proper observation time can lower the possibility of missing the gastric adenoma during screening.

Cervical inlet patches (CIP) are common endoscopic findings with uncertain pathogenesis and clinical significance. We aimed to perform a systematic review and prospective study of clinical data and endoscopic findings related to CIP. It was a prospective single-center study conducted between 10/01/2017 and 9/01/2018. Forty patients with histopathologically confirmed CIP were compared with 222 individuals in the reference group. The systematic review was executed in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Alcohol consumption tended to be higher among patients with CIP (3.0 ± 4.6 vs. 1.9 ± 5.0 standard drinks/week CIP patients and reference group, respectively; p < 0.001). Dysphagia was more frequent among patients with CIP (25% vs. 1.4%, CIP patients and reference group, respectively; p < 0.001), and sore throat and hoarseness were less frequent in patients with CIP (17.5% vs. 26.6% CIP patients and reference group, respectively; p < 0.01). In the multivariate regression analysis, the only risk factor of CIP occurrence was dysphagia (OR 21.9, 95%CI 4.9-98.6; p < 0.001). Sore throat and hoarseness were a reverse-risk factor of CIP diagnosis (OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.1-0.93; p = 0.04). Clinical data and coexisting endoscopic findings were not related to CIP. In the presented study, dysphagia was related to CIP occurrence, and sore throat and hoarseness tended to be less frequent among patients with CIP.

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

Magnifying endoscopy is advantageous in detecting precancerous lesions. Our study aimed to clarify its ability to detect easily missed neoplastic lesions on the upper gastrointestinal tract. A retrospective analysis of clinical, endoscopic, and pathological data of cases undergoing gastroscopy was performed using magnifying and routine endoscopy. The detection rates of overall lesions, the ability to identify flat-type neoplastic lesions, and the easily missed neoplastic lesions were compared between the two groups. Endoscopic data from 32,367 patients was analyzed in this study. The use of magnifying endoscopy was an independent factor in identifying flat lesions (OR 2.236, 95% CI 1.969-2.540, p < 0.001), particularly type IIb lesions (OR 3.117, 95% CI 2.333-4.165, p < 0.001). For neoplastic lesions, magnifying endoscopy was also identified as having better sensitivity than routine endoscopy (sensitivity, 90.4% vs. 78.9%, p < 0.001). Similarly, magnifying endoscopy was an independent factor for identifying flat lesions (OR 2.927, 95% CI 2.365-3.621, p < 0.001), especially type IIc lesions (OR 4.415, 95% CI 3.076-6.339, p < 0.001). Magnifying endoscopy was also identified as having superior sensitivity (44.7% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.034) for early cancerous lesions. Compared to routine endoscopy, magnification endoscopy is advantageous in detecting and identifying neoplastic lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract, especially flat neoplastic lesions and early cancers.

BACKGROUND : Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations. METHODS : The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6-36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs. RESULTS : Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5-81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A - lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B - lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C - possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D - possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E - deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F - deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists' mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient -0.57; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION : Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is vital for the early diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC). However, improvement in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC with anesthesia assistance (AA) has not yet been investigated. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of AA on the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC in patients undergoing EGD screening and identify risk factors affecting the detection rate.

We reviewed patients' electronic medical records who underwent EGD screening between May 2019 and August 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received AA: those in Group A underwent EGD screening with AA, and patients in Group O underwent EGD screening without AA. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Detection rates of precancerous lesions and early ESCC were compared between the two groups following PSM. Binary logistic regression was used to identify risk factors affecting the detection rate.

The final analysis included 21,835 patients (Group A = 13,319, Group O = 8,516) from 28,985 patients who underwent EGD screening during the study period. Following PSM, 6009 patients remained in each group for analysis. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC between Groups A and O (1.1% vs. 0.8%, p > 0.05). Binary logistic regression showed that age (50-59 years, 60-69 years and 70-79 years), higher endoscopist seniority, high-definition (HD) endoscopy, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and number of endoscopic images were all independent risk factors that affected the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC.

There was no statistically significant difference in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC between patients who underwent EGD screening with and without AA. All independent risk factors that affected the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC included the following: age (50-59 years, 60-69 years and 70-79 years), higher endoscopist seniority, HD endoscopy, NBI, and number of endoscopic images. Endoscopists should consider all these factors as much as possible when performing EGD screening.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. Despite advancement in endoscopic techniques, the majority of the cases are diagnosed at late stage, when the curative treatment options are very limited. The early gastric cancer (EGC) on the other side is potentially curable, and in selected cases endoscopic resection techniques offer similar survival rates then surgical resection. The detection of EGC is endoscopically challenging and requires high quality examination. Recent data show that close to 10% of the gastric cancer cases had a previous negative endoscopy. This highlights the urgent need to improve the quality of the endoscopy services, what can be achieved by increasing the awareness of gastroenterologists and continuously monitoring the key performance indicators of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Newer endoscopic imaging techniques are also becoming commonly available to aid the detection of gastric premalignant lesions and EGC. High-definition endoscopy with image enhancement techniques is preferred over white light endoscopy to recognize these lesions, and they are also useful to determine the invasion depth of EGC. The endoscopic optical characterization of lesions is necessary for the selection of proper resection method and decide whether endoscopic resection techniques can be considered. Artificial intelligence systems aid the detection of EGC and can help to determine the depth of invasion. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection requires centralized care and tertiary referral centers with appropriate expertise to ensure proper patient selection, high success rate and low adverse event rate. Appropriately scheduled endoscopic surveillance of high-risk patients, premalignant lesions and after resection of EGC is also important in the early detection and successful treatment of gastric cancer.

Strong evidence demonstrates the protective benefit of frequent colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer prevention in Lynch Syndrome (LS) and is endorsed by many guidelines. Until recently, the evidence supporting the utility of upper endoscopy [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer surveillance was limited. Over the last 3 years, multiple studies have demonstrated that EGD surveillance in LS is associated with the detection of both precancerous lesions and early-stage UGI cancers. On the basis of the emerging favorable evidence derived from EGD surveillance programs, the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for LS recommend UGI surveillance with EGD starting between age 30 and 40 years with repeat EGDs every 2 to 4 years, preferably in conjunction with colonoscopy, in all patients with a germline pathogenic variant (PV) in MLH1, MSH2, EPCAM, and MSH6 and, because of the lack of data, consideration in PMS2. Standardization of the approach to performing EGD surveillance in LS and reporting clinically actionable findings is requisite for both improving quality and understanding the cost efficiency and outcomes of patients undergoing EGD as a surveillance tool. Accordingly, the primary objective of this Quality of Upper Endoscopy in Lynch Syndrome (QUELS) statement is to articulate a framework for standardizing the approach to performing and reporting EGD findings in patients with LS by introducing emerging quality metrics. The recommendations presented herein were developed from available evidence and consensus-based expert opinion and provide a practical approach for clinicians applying EGD surveillance in accordance with the most recent and existing LS guidelines.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is effective in reducing gastric cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancer in areas with a high prevalence of gastric cancer. Although the risk of post-endoscopy advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is low, interval AGC remains a concern. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of interval AGC after negative EGD.

We included 1257 patients with gastric cancer within 6 to 36 months of a "cancer-negative" index EGD between 2005 and 2021 at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. Observation time on the index EGD was used as a quality indicator. We compared the clinical and endoscopic characteristics and quality indicators between interval AGC and screen-detected early gastric cancer (EGC).

Within 6 to 36 months of negative EGD, 102 AGCs (8.1%) and 1155 EGCs (91.9%) were identified. The percentage of patients with shorter observation time (<3 minutes) in the index EGD was higher in the interval AGC group than in the detected EGC group (P = .002). A multivariable analysis comparing screen-detected EGD and interval AGC was adjusted for age, sex, family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori status, endoscopic findings, and endoscopy-related factors including gastric observation time and interval time. A shorter observation time (<3 minutes) (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.30), and interval time >2 years (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.24) were associated with an increased risk of interval AGC.

A shorter observation time during index EGD is an important predictor of interval AGC. Further, withdrawal time longer than 3 minutes may be a quality indicator for screening EGD.

Guidelines on quality of upper GI (UGI) endoscopy have been proposed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, these guidelines have not been evaluated in clinical practice. We aimed to measure the impact of endoscopist education on the quality of gastroscopy based on these guidelines and the association between compliance with guidelines and the detection of clinically significant premalignant pathology such as Barrett's esophagus (BE), esophageal squamous dysplasia, gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and Helicobacter pylori.

Endoscopists participated in a 1-hour education session on recommended performance measures and endoscopic detection of premalignant pathologies. A controlled before and after study was performed, measuring compliance with guidelines and rates of detection of pathology in control and intervention groups.

Over 2 years, 2719 procedures were performed: 1412 in the control group and 1307 in the intervention group. The proportion of procedures complying with guidelines was higher in the intervention group. The use of biopsy sampling protocols (eg, management of precancerous conditions of the stomach, 52% vs 91%; P = .007) and standardized terminology (eg, Forrest classification, 24% vs 68%; P < .001) was significantly higher. Detection of H pylori was higher in the intervention group (5.5% vs 9.8%, P = .003). Minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with detection of BE (7.4% vs 2.0%, P < .001).

A simple endoscopist education session enhanced the quality of UGI endoscopy by improving compliance with BSG and ESGE recommendations and increasing the detection of clinically significant pathology. A minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with increased diagnostic yield and may be a feasible quality indicator for clinical practice.

Gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) is the fourth leading cause of global cancer mortality, and the leading infection-associated cancer. Helicobacter pylori is the dominant risk factor for GC and classified as an IARC class I carcinogen. Surveillance of gastric premalignant conditions is now indicated in high-risk patients. Upper endoscopy is the gold standard for GC diagnosis, and image-enhanced endoscopy increases the detection of gastric premalignant conditions and early gastric cancer (EGC). Clinical staging is crucial for treatment approach, defining early gastric cancer, operable locoregional disease, and advanced GC. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the treatment of choice for most EGC. Targeted therapies are rapidly evolving, based on biomarkers including MSI/dMMR, HER2, and PD-L1. These advancements in surveillance, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are expected to improve GC survival rates in the near term.

Visualization and photodocumentation during endoscopy procedures are suggested to be one indicator for endoscopy performance quality. However, this indicator is difficult to measure and audit manually in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging technology that may solve this problem.

A deep learning model with an accuracy of 96.64% was developed from 15,305 images for upper endoscopy anatomy classification in the unit. Endoscopy images for asymptomatic patients receiving screening endoscopy were evaluated with this model to assess the completeness of photodocumentation rate.

A total of 15,723 images from 472 upper endoscopies performed by 12 endoscopists were enrolled. The complete photodocumentation rate from the pharynx to the duodenum was 53.8% and from the esophagus to the duodenum was 78.0% in this study. Endoscopists with a higher adenoma detection rate had a higher complete examination rate from the pharynx to duodenum (60.0% vs. 38.7%, P < 0.0001) and from esophagus to duodenum (83.0% vs. 65.7%, P < 0.0001) compared with endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rate. The pharynx, gastric angle, gastric retroflex view, gastric antrum, and the first portion of duodenum are likely to be missed by endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rates.

We report the use of a deep learning model to audit endoscopy photodocumentation quality in our unit. Endoscopists with better performance in colonoscopy had a better performance for this quality indicator. The use of such an AI system may help the endoscopy unit audit endoscopy performance.

Various measures of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) quality have been proposed so far and the examination time was one of the first. The aim of the study was to compare the procedure time with novel novel quality measures - composite detection rate (CDR) and endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR).

It was prospective observational study. A total of 880 diagnostic EGDs conducted from 01.2019 to 07.2019 have been enrolled in the study.

Median EGD time was 4.2 min. Procedures of longer duration were marked with higher CDR (26.3% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.0001), higher EBR (44.9% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001), and better upper gastrointestinal neoplasm (UGN) detection (1.8% vs. 0%; P = 0.004) in comparison with procedures of shorter duration. The procedures were divided into 4 groups based on the time quartiles (group 1 <3.3 min; group 2 3.3-4.2 min; group 3 4.2-5.3 min; group 4 >5.3 min). The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for biopsy rate were 2.42 (95% CI, 1.33-4.55), 4.33 (95% CI, 2.46-7.94), and 5.51 (95% CI, 3.18-10.03), respectively, in comparison with group 1. The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for CDR were 3.18 (95% CI, 2.03-4.97), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.51-8.50), and 23.44 (95% CI, 14.3-38.4), respectively, in comparison with group 1.

The procedure time is related to novel metrics - CDR and EBR. It is also related to UGN. Based on our findings it could be concluded that EGD should not last less than 4.2 min.

Background and study aims  Oropharyngeal intubation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is uncomfortable, associated with aerosol generation and transmission of airborne microbes. Less-invasive alternatives may be better tolerated. In this study, patient tolerance and acceptability of EGD and transnasal endoscopy (TNE) have been compared with magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MACE). Patients and methods  A comparison of MACE with EGD and TNE in the investigation of dyspepsia was performed. Factors affecting patient tolerance and acceptability were examined using the Endoscopy Concerns Scale (ECS) and Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). Results  Patients were significantly more distressed (scoring least to most distress: 1-10) by gagging (6 vs 1), choking (5 vs 1), bloating (2 vs 1), instrumentation (4 vs 1), discomfort during (5 vs 1) and after (2 vs 1) EGD compared to MACE (all P  < 0.0001). Patients were more distressed by instrumentation (5 vs 1) and discomfort during (5 vs 1) TNE compared to MACE ( P  = 0.001). Patients were more accepting of MACE than EGD and TNE with a UPC-Q score (scoring least to most acceptable: 0-100) lower for EGD (50 vs 98, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (75 vs 88, P  = 0.007) than MACE, and a post-procedure ECS score (scoring most to least acceptable: 10-100) higher for EGD (34 vs 11, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (25 vs 10.5, P  = 0.001) than MACE. MACE would be preferred by 83 % and 64 % of patients even if EGD or TNE respectively was subsequently recommended to obtain biopsies in half of examinations. Conclusions  Gagging and choking during instrumentation, the main causes of patient distress during EGD, occurred less during TNE but tolerance, acceptability and patient experience favored MACE.