The Clinical Usefulness of the PillCam Progress Indicator for Route Selection in Double Balloon Endoscopy

Predictive factors for the progression of primary localized stage small-bowel follicular lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Primary small-bowel follicular lymphoma (FL) is mainly diagnosed as a duodenal lesion during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Recently, with the widespread use of small-bowel endoscopy, FL in the jejunum and ileum has been detected. Most patients with small-bowel FL are diagnosed at the localized stage, and a watch-and-wait policy is used. However, the predictive factors for the progression of small-bowel FL have not been clarified. This study retrospectively examined the predictive factors for the progression of primary localized stage small-bowel FL based on clinicopathological and endoscopic findings.

METHODS

We enrolled 60 consecutive patients with primary small-bowel FL diagnosed at two tertiary hospitals between January 2005 and December 2020, with localized stage, low grade, and low tumor burden with the watch-and-wait policy. We examined the predictive factors for progression according to the clinicopathological and endoscopic findings. Endoscopic findings were focused on the color tone, circumferential location of follicular lesions (circumference ≥ 1/2 or < 1/2), fusion of follicular lesions (fusion [ +] or [ -]), and protruded lesions (≥ 6 mm or < 6 mm).

RESULTS

Progressive disease was observed in 12 (20%) patients (mean observation period, 76.4 ± 55.4 months). In the multivariate analysis, "circumference ≥ 1/2" and "fusion (+)" were significant predictive factors for progression. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the "circumference ≥ 1/2" and/or "fusion (+)" group than in the "circumference < 1/2" and "fusion ( -)" group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic findings of "circumference ≥ 1/2" and "fusion (+)" were significant predictive factors for the progression of primary localized stage small-bowel FL.

Scoring systems in clinical small-bowel capsule endoscopy: all you need to know!

Capsule endoscopy (CE) emerged out of the pressing clinical need to image the small bowel (SB) in cases of midgut bleeding and provide an overall comfortable and reliable gastrointestinal (GI) diagnosis 1. Since its wider adoption in clinical practice, significant progress has been made in several areas including software development, hardware features and clinical indications, while innovative applications of CE never cease to appear 2 3. Currently, several manufacturers provide endoscopic capsules with more or less similar technological features 4. Although there is engaging and continuous academic and industry-fueled R&D, promising furtherment of CE technology 4 5, the current status of clinical CE remains that of by and large an imaging modality. Clinical relevance of CE images is cornerstone in the decision-making process for medical management. In one of the larger to date SB CE studies, 4,206 abnormal images were detected in 3,280 patients 6. Thus, CE leads to the identification of a large amount of potential pathology, some of which are pertinent (or relevant) while some (probably the majority) are not.

Soon artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to carry out several roles currently performed by humans; in fact, we are witnessing only the first stages of a transition in the clinical adoption of AI-based solutions in several aspects of gastroenterology including CE 7. Until then though, human-based decision-making profoundly impacts patient care and – although not suggested in the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) European curriculum 8 9 – it should be an integral part of CE training. Frequently, interpretation of CE images by experts or at least experienced readers differs. In a tandem CE reading study, expert review of discordant cases revealed a 50 % (13/25 discordant results) error rate by experienced readers, corresponding (in 5/13 cases) to ‘over-classification’ of an irrelevant abnormality 10. Another comparative study showed an ‘over-classification’ of such irrelevant abnormalities in ~10 % of CE readings 11. One thing which has been for a while on the table – in relation to optimizing and/or standardizing CE reporting and subsequent decision-making – is the need for reproducible scoring systems and for a reliable common language among clinicians responsible for further patient’s management.

Over the years, several of these scoring systems were developed while others appear in the wake of software and hardware improvements aiming to replace and/or complement their predecessors. This review presents a comprehensive account of the currently available classification/scoring systems in clinical CE spanning from predicting the bleeding potential of identified SB lesions (with emphasis on vascular lesions), and the individual rebleeding risk; scoring systems for the prediction of SB lesions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGlB), having the potential to improve patient selection and rationalize the use of enteroscopy, with better allocation of resources, optimized diagnostic workflow and tailored treatment. This review also includes scores for reporting the inflammatory burden, the cleansing level that underscores confidence in CE reporting and the mass or bulge question in CE. Essentially, the aim is to become a main text for reference when scoring is required and facilitate the inclusion of -through readiness of access- one of the other in the final report.

Capsule endoscopy transit-related indicators in choosing the insertion route for double-balloon enteroscopy: a systematic review

Background and study aims  When capsule endoscopy (CE) detects a small bowel (SB) target lesion that may be manageable with enteroscopy, the selection of the insertion route is critical. Time- and progression-based CE indices have been proposed for localization of SB lesions. This systematic review analysed the role of CE transit indicators in choosing the insertion route for double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Methods  A comprehensive literature search identified papers assessing the role of CE on the choice of the route selection for DBE. Data on CE, criteria for route selection, and DBE success parameters were retrieved and analyzed according to the PRISMA statement. Risk of bias was assessed through the STROBE assessment. The primary outcome evaluated was DBE success rate in reaching a SB lesion, measured as the ratio of positive initial DBE to the number of total DBE. Results  Seven studies including 262 CEs requiring subsequent DBE were selected. Six studies used time-based indices and one used the PillCam Progress indicator. SB lesions were identified and insertion route was selected according to a specific cut-off, using fixed landmarks for defining SB transit except for one study in which the mouth-cecum transit was considered. DBE success rate was high in all studies, ranging from 78.3 % to 100 %. Six of seven studies were high quality. Conclusions  The precise localization of SB lesions remains an open issue, and larger studies are required to determine the most accurate index for selecting the DBE insertion route. In the future, 3 D localization technologies and tracking systems will be essential to accomplish this tricky task.