1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). \ud \ud 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). \ud \ud 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10-15mmwith a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). \ud \ud 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)

ObjectivesCOVID-19 has rapidly become a major health emergency worldwide. Patients with IBD are at increased risk of infection, especially when they have active disease and are taking immunosuppressive therapy. The characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with IBD remain unclear.DesignThis Italian prospective observational cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with an established IBD diagnosis and confirmed COVID-19. Data regarding age, sex, IBD (type, treatments and clinical activity), other comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and therapies were compared with COVID-19 outcomes (pneumonia, hospitalisation, respiratory therapy and death).ResultsBetween 11 and 29 March 2020, 79 patients with IBD with COVID-19 were enrolled at 24 IBD referral units. Thirty-six patients had COVID-19-related pneumonia (46%), 22 (28%) were hospitalised, 7 (9%) required non-mechanical ventilation, 9 (11%) required continuous positive airway pressure therapy, 2 (3%) had endotracheal intubation and 6 (8%) died. Four patients (6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 while they were being hospitalised for a severe flare of IBD. Age over 65 years (p=0.03), UC diagnosis (p=0.03), IBD activity (p=0.003) and a CCI score >1 (p=0.04) were significantly associated with COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas concomitant IBD treatments were not. Age over 65 years (p=0.002), active IBD (p=0.02) and higher CCI score were significantly associated with COVID-19-related death.ConclusionsActive IBD, old age and comorbidities were associated with a negative COVID-19 outcome, whereas IBD treatments were not. Preventing acute IBD flares may avoid fatal COVID-19 in patients with IBD. Further research is needed.

Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR. A total of 1224 patients aged 50 - 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % - 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % - 45.3 %; = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % - 48.3 %; = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % - 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % - 20.9 %; = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % - 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % - 4.6 %; = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange ( = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation. The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

Background and aimsArtificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1).MethodsIn this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40–80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting.ResultsIn 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis.ConclusionsIn less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR.Trial registration numberNCT:04260321.

Highlights UGIB has a prevalence of 0.47% in non-ICU COVID-19 patients and peptic disease is the most common finding. Half of patients were managed conservatively or with delayed endoscopy. This is the first report that evaluates incidence of UGIB in COVID-19 patients. Conservative management and delayed endoscopy could be a successful option in patients with significant respiratory impairment.