Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process Background: Doctors often use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a high-tech capsule with two cameras, to record and check for diseases in the small and large bowels as the capsule travels through the intestines. One of the most common conditions in the large bowel is polyps, which are abnormal growths in the lining of the bowel. Comparing and matching polyps in the same video from the capsule can be tricky as they look very similar, leading to the possibility of incorrectly reporting the same polyp twice or more. This can lead to wrong results and inaccuracies. The literature did not have any criteria or standards for matching polyps in CCE before. Aim: Using the RAND/UCLA (modified Delphi) process, this study aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. The goal is to explore each factor and create complete criteria for polyp matching based on the agreement from international experts. Method: A group of 11 international CCE experts came together to evaluate a survey with 60 statements. They anonymously rated each statement on a scale from 1 to 9 (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain, and 7-9: appropriate). After discussing the Round 1 results virtually, a Round 2 survey with the same but revised questions was created and completed before the final analysis of their agreement. Results: The main factors for matching polyps are 1) the timing when the polyp was seen, 2) where it is in the bowel, 3) its blood vessel pattern, 4) size, 5) the timing of its appearance between cameras, 6) surrounding tissue features, 7) its shape, and 8) surface features. If five or more of these factors match, the compared polyps are likely the same. Conclusion: This study establishes the first complete criteria for matching polyps in CCE. While it may not provide a definitive solution for matching challenging and small polyps, these criteria serve as a guide to help and make the process of polyp matching easier.

No Abstract

Introduction: Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) often develop cancer recurrence. Establishing timing, patterns and risk factors for recurrence may help inform surveillance protocol strategies or select patients who could benefit from additional systemic or locoregional therapies. This multicentre retrospective cohort study aimed to determine timing, patterns, and predictive factors of recurrence following pancreaticoduodenectomy for dCCA. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for dCCA between June 2012 and May 2015 with five years of follow-up were included. The primary outcome was recurrence pattern (none, local-only, distant-only or mixed local/distant). Data were collected on comorbidities, investigations, operation details, complications, histology, adjuvant and palliative therapies, recurrence-free and overall survival. Univariable tests and regression analyses investigated factors associated with recurrence. Results: In the cohort of 198 patients, 129 (65%) developed recurrence: 30 (15%) developed local-only recurrence, 44 (22%) developed distant-only recurrence and 55 (28%) developed mixed pattern recurrence. The most common recurrence sites were local (49%), liver (24%) and lung (11%). 94% of patients who developed recurrence did so within three years of surgery. Predictors of recurrence on univariable analysis were cancer stage, R1 resection, lymph node metastases, perineural invasion, microvascular invasion and lymphatic invasion. Predictors of recurrence on multivariable analysis were female sex, venous resection, advancing histological stage and lymphatic invasion. Conclusion: Two thirds of patients have cancer recurrence following pancreaticoduodenectomy for dCCA, and most recur within three years of surgery. The commonest sites of recurrence are the pancreatic bed, liver and lung. Multiple histological features are associated with recurrence.

We analyzed 40 paired measurements. Median age was 22 years. Median liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was 15.4 kPa (12.1-19.6) by TE and 8.0 kPa (7.0-10.3) (P = 0.001) by 2D SWE. There was weak correlation between the modalities (r = 0.41, P = 0.004). There was no correlation between time since Fontan and LSM by TE (r = 0.15, P = 0.19) or 2D SWE (r = 0.19, P = 0.13). There was no difference in LSM irrespective of whether sonographic cirrhosis was present or absent by TE (17.4 kPa [15.9-23.6] vs. 14.9 kPa [12.0-19.4], respectively, P = 0.6) or 2D SWE (9.0 kPa [2.8-10.5] vs. 8.0 kPa [6.7-10.1], P = 0.46). There was no correlation between AVV S/D ratio and LSM by TE (r = 0.16, P = 0.18) or 2D SWE (r = 0.02, P = 0.45).

Background and aims: The UNIFI long-term extension [LTE] study reports the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous 90 mg ustekinumab through 3 years of maintenance therapy.

Mendelian disorders in glucose-6-phosphate metabolism can present with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. Using whole genome sequencing we identified a homozygous variant in the glucose-6-phosphatase G6PC3 gene [c.911dupC; p.Q305fs*82] in an adult patient with congenital neutropenia, lymphopenia and childhood-onset, therapy-refractory Crohn's disease. Because G6PC3 is expressed in several haematopoietic and non-haematopoietic cells it was unclear whether allogeneic stem cell transplantation [HSCT] would benefit this patient with intestinal inflammation. We show that HSCT resolves G6PC3-associated immunodeficiency and the Crohn's disease phenotype. It illustrates how even in adulthood, next-generation sequencing can have a significant impact on clinical practice and healthcare utilization in patients with immunodeficiency and monogenic IBD.

Introduction: Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway. Results: In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments. Conclusion: The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.