METHOD: The Delphi method was used to develop consensus statements through identification of clinical questions on diagnostic endoscopy. Three consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and voting. We conducted a systematic literature search on evidence for each statement. The statements were presented in the second consensus meeting and revised according to comments. The final voting was conducted at the third consensus meeting on the level of evidence and agreement.
RESULTS: Risk stratification should be conducted before endoscopy and high risk endoscopic findings should raise an index of suspicion. The presence of premalignant mucosal changes should be documented and use of sedation is recommended to enhance detection of superficial upper GI neoplasms. The use of antispasmodics and mucolytics enhanced visualisation of the upper GI tract, and systematic endoscopic mapping should be conducted to improve detection. Sufficient examination time and structured training on diagnosis improves detection. Image enhanced endoscopy in addition to white light imaging improves detection of superficial upper GI cancer. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is recommended for characterisation of upper GI superficial neoplasms. Endoscopic characterisation can avoid unnecessary biopsy.
CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for the performance of endoscopic diagnosis and characterisation for early gastric and oesophageal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early upper GI cancers.
METHODS: Key endoscopic features for scars with and without recurrence were (1) dark brown color, elongated/branched pit pattern, and dense capillary pattern and (2) whitish, pale appearance, round/slightly large pits, and irregular sparse vessels. Scars were first assessed with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) followed by interrogation with narrow-band imaging (NBI). Scars with at least 2 concordant characteristics were diagnosed with "high confidence" for NBI for scar (NBI-SCAR) classification. The final endoscopic predictions were correlated with histopathology. The primary outcome was the difference in sensitivity between NBI-SCAR and HD-WLE predictions. Secondary outcomes included the validation of our findings in 6 different endoscopy settings (Australia, United States, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, and Malaysia). The validation took place in 2 sessions separated by 2 to 3 weeks, each with 10 one-minute videos of post-ER scars on underwater NBI with dual focus. Inter-rater and intrarater reliability were calculated with Fleiss' free-marginal kappa and Bennett et al. S score, respectively.
RESULTS: One hundred scars from 82 patients were included. Ninety-five scars were accurately predicted with high confidence by NBI-SCAR in the exploratory phase. NBI-SCAR sensitivity was significantly higher compared with HD-WLE (100% vs 73.7%, P < .05). In the validation phase, similar results were found for endoscopists who routinely perform colonoscopies and use NBI (sensitivity of 96.4%). The inter-rater and intrarater reliability throughout all centers were, respectively, substantial (κ = .61) and moderate (average S = .52) for this subset.
CONCLUSIONS: NBI-SCAR has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for excluding recurrence for endoscopists experienced in colonoscopy and NBI. In this setting, this approach may help to accurately evaluate or resect scars and potentially mitigate the burden of unnecessary biopsy samples.
AIM: To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.
METHODS: Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.
RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.
METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. After receiving a pre-test, participants were randomly allocated to either an e-learning or non-e-learning group. Only those in the e-learning group gained access to the e-learning system. Two months after the pre-test, both groups received a post-test. The primary endpoint was the difference between the two groups regarding the rate of improvement of their test results.
FINDINGS: 515 endoscopists from 35 countries were assessed for eligibility, and 332 were enrolled in the study, with 166 allocated to each group. Of these, 151 participants in the e-learning group and 144 in the non-e-learning group were included in the analysis. The mean improvement rate (standard deviation) in the e-learning and non-e-learning groups was 1·24 (0·26) and 1·00 (0·16), respectively (P<0·001).
INTERPRETATION: This global study clearly demonstrated the efficacy of an e-learning system to expand knowledge and provide invaluable experience regarding the endoscopic detection of early gastric cancer (R000012039).
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to understand the role of a novel SCB for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
METHODS: EASTBOURNE (All-Comers Sirolimus-Coated Balloon European Registry) is a prospective, multicenter, investigator-driven clinical study that enrolled real-world patients treated with SCB. Primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were procedural success, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, and major adverse clinical events (a composite of death, MI, and TLR). All adverse events were censored and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee.
RESULTS: A total population of 2,123 patients (2,440 lesions) was enrolled at 38 study centers in Europe and Asia. The average age was 66.6 ± 11.3 years, and diabetic patients were 41.5%. De novo lesions (small vessels) were 56%, in-stent restenosis (ISR) 44%, and bailout stenting occurred in 7.7% of the patients. After 12 months, TLR occurred in 5.9% of the lesions, major adverse clinical events in 9.9%, and spontaneous MI in 2.4% of the patients. The rates of cardiac/all-cause death were 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The primary outcome occurred more frequently in the ISR cohort (10.5% vs 2.0%; risk ratio: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.13-3.19). After multivariate Cox regression model, the main determinant for occurrence of the primary endpoint was ISR (OR: 5.5; 95% CI: 3.382-8.881).
CONCLUSIONS: EASTBOURNE, the largest DCB study in the coronary field, shows the safety and efficacy of a novel SCB in a broad population of coronary artery disease including small vessels and ISR patients at mid-term follow-up. (The All-Comers Sirolimus-Coated Balloon European Registry [EASTBOURNE]; NCT03085823).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. This SRMA included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting the pre- and postoperative levels of SDF and seminal OS in infertile men with clinical varicocele that underwent VR. Subgroup analyses included techniques of VR and SDF testing. The effect size was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 abstracts assessed for eligibility, 29 studies with 1,491 infertile men were included. The analysis showed a significant reduction in SDF after VR, compared to preoperative values (SMD -1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.410, -0.840; p<0.0001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=90.965%). Reduction in SDF was evident with microsurgical technique and non-microsurgical inguinal approaches (SMD -1.014, 95% CI -1.263, -0.765; p<0.0001, and SMD -1.495, 95% CI -2.116, -0.873; p<0.0001), respectively. Reduction in SDF was significant irrespective of testing was done by sperm chromatin dispersion (SMD -2.197, 95% CI -3.187, -1.207; p<0.0001), sperm chromatin structure assay (SMD -0.857, 95% CI -1.156, -0.559; p<0.0001) or TUNEL (SMD -1.599, 95% CI -2.478, -0.719; p<0.0001). A significant decrease in seminal MDA levels was observed following VR (SMD -2.450, 95% CI -3.903 to -0.997, p=0.001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=93.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Using pre- and post-intervention data, this SRMA indicates a significant reduction in SDF and seminal MDA levels in infertile men with clinical varicocele treated with VR. These findings may have important implications for the future management of this selected group of infertile patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies).
RESULTS: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I²=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I²=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I²=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I²=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I²=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I²=89.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies' practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.