The majority of LSTs are non-invasive at the time of colonoscopic detection and can be treated with (piecemeal) endoscopic mucosal resection. Pretreatment diagnosis of endoscopic subtype, specifying areas of concern (nodule or depression), determines those LSTs at highest risk of containing SMI, where en bloc resection is the preferred therapy.

Background and Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable with routine screening and surveillance colonoscopy; however, interval cancers arising from precancerous lesions missed by standard colonoscopy still occur. An increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been found to be inversely associated with interval cancers. The G-EYE device includes a reusable balloon integrated at the distal tip of a standard colonoscope, which flattens haustral folds, centralizes the colonoscope's optics, and reduces bowel slippage. The insufflated balloon also aims to enhance visualization of the colon during withdrawal, thereby increasing the ADR. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, international, multicenter study (11 centers), patients (aged !50 years) referred to colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or changes in bowel habits were randomized to undergo either balloon-assisted colonoscopy by using an insufflated balloon during withdrawal or standard highdefinition colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Results: One thousand patients were enrolled between May 2014 and September 2016 to undergo colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists; 803 were finally analyzed (standard colonoscopy n Z 396; balloon-assisted colonoscopy n Z 407). Baseline parameters were similar in both groups. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided a 48.0% ADR compared with 37.5% in the standard colonoscopy group (28% increase; P Z .0027). Additionally, balloonassisted colonoscopy provided for a significant increase in detection of advanced (P Z .0033) flat adenomas (P < .0001) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (P Z .0026). Conclusion: Balloon-assisted colonoscopy yielded a higher ADR and increased the detection of advanced, flat, and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps when compared with standard colonoscopy. Improved detection by the G-EYE device could impact the quality of CRC screening by reducing miss rates and consequently reducing interval cancer incidence.

No differences were found with regard to mortality or infectious complications. PEG showed lower risk of tube-related complications. Subgroup analysis revealed PEG to be favorable in HNC based on lower rates of procedure-related mortality and tube-related complications. Local experience and availability should be taken into account in the decision process.

In the IBDSL cohort, 45.0% of all CRCs were considered to be PCCRCs, mainly classified as missed lesions. Additionally, a large proportion of CRCs in our cohort were observed before a surveillance endoscopy was performed. Therefore, stringent adherence to IBD surveillance guidelines, improving endoscopy techniques and adjusting the surveillance program may lead to a decrease in CRC incidence.

Background: Self-rating scales are frequently used to screen for anxiety and depression in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Different cutoff values are recommended in literature, and guidelines have suggested the use of other screening instruments over time. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the most commonly used psychological screening instruments for anxiety and depression in IBS and to compare custom cutoff scores for these instruments. Methods: Irritable bowel syndrome patients (n = 192) completed several questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, HADS-A and HADS-D subscale), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Agreement at different cutoff points, for depressive and anxiety disorder, was assessed by use of the Gwet AC1 coefficient.Key Results: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)-D and PHQ-9 scores, and HADS-A and GAD-7 scores showed high correlations (r s = 0.735 and r s = 0.805, respectively). For depressive disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.829 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (PHQ-9 cutoff ≥10, HADS-D cutoff ≥8). For anxiety disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.806 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (GAD-7 cutoff ≥10, HADS-A cutoff ≥8). Even higher agreements were found when higher HADS cutoff values were chosen, with impact on sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions & Inferences:Custom cutoff values deem the HADS subscales (HADS-D and HADS-A) concordant to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores. The choice of a cutoff value has substantial impact on sensitivity/specificity and is dependent on patient population, setting, and the purpose of use.