News

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

Veterans at risk of suicide may not share their suicidal ideation with their psychotherapists or may choose not to disclose enough detail to illustrate the depths of those thoughts due to feelings of shame or embarrassment, according to a newly published study. These individuals may view suicidal thoughts as a sign of weakness, fear involuntary hospitalization or prescriptions, or belong to marginalized groups who do not feel comfortable (or safe) to reveal their thoughts or intentions. This can make it difficult for mental health professionals to identify the exact details of a patient’s mindset and provide appropriate care. 

A veteran’s first—and sometimes only—stop may be their primary care practitioner (PCPs) rather than a mental health professional. A review of 40 studies found that although 45% of individuals who died by suicide had contact with PCPs within 1 month of their death, only 19% had contact with mental health services. Studies have also found that veterans disclose suicidal ideation during primary care visits closest to the actual suicide less than half the time.

Patients may have an appointment for medical, but not psychological reasons. In a study conducted at Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), researchers reviewed the medical records of 112 veterans who died by suicide and had contact with a VAMC within 1 year prior to death. Of those last contacts, 32% were patient-initiated for new or exacerbated medical concerns, and 68% were follow-ups. 

In that study, health care professionals (HCPs) noted that 41 patients (37%) were experiencing emotional distress at the last contact, but 13 of 18 patients (72%) who were assessed for suicidal ideation at their last contact denied such thoughts. The study says this finding “highlights the complexity of addressing suicidal ideation and associated risk factors in health care settings.” Additionally, a number of veterans who died by suicide either did not have suicidal thoughts  at the time of their last contact with HCPs or denied such thoughts even when questioned. 

In 2018, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented the Suicide Risk Identification Strategy (Risk ID), an evidence-informed assessment that includes initial screening and subsequent evaluation. Veterans receiving VHA care are screened annually for suicidal ideation and behaviors. Most screening takes place in primary care and mental health specialty settings, but timely screening may not be enough to assess who is at risk if the patients aren’t being forthcoming about their thoughts and plans.

A recent cross-sectional national survey examined the frequency of self-reported “inaccurate disclosure” of suicidal ideation during initial screening and subsequent evaluation among 734 VHA patients screened in primary care.

Using the Risk ID process with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale Screener (C-SSRS), the study asked respondents about their previous suicide screening in 2021. Of the 734 respondents, 306 screened positive and 428 screened negative. One survey item asked about the extent to which veterans had accurately responded to the HCP when asked about suicidal thoughts, while another asked how likely they would discuss when they felt suicidal with their PCP.

The study found that inaccurate disclosure is not uncommon: When asked about suicidal thoughts, about one-fifth of screen-negative participants and two-fifths of screen-positive participants said they responded, “less than very accurately.”

In the screen-positive group, women and those who reported more barriers to care were less likely to discuss feeling suicidal. Veterans who had lower ratings of satisfaction with the screening process, patient-staff communication, and the therapeutic relationship reported being less likely to discuss times they were suicidal. Notably, among C-SSRS-negative patients, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and multiracial veterans were more likely than White veterans to inaccurately report suicidal thoughts. 

This is consistent with studies on medical mistrust and other research suggesting that veterans who have experienced identity-based discrimination may be less inclined to discuss suicidal thoughts with VHA HCPs. A large 2023 study surveyed veterans about why they might hold back such information. One Gulf War-era veteran, a Black woman, had encountered discrimination when filing her VA benefits claim, leading her to feel like the care system was not interested in helping her.

“It’s one of the main reasons why when I do go in, they don’t get an honest response,” she wrote in her survey response. “I feel that you’re not for me, you’re not trying to help me, you don’t wanna help me, and why even go through it, go through the motions it seems. So, I can come in feeling suicidal and I leave out feeling suicidal then.” 

Veterans typically welcome screening for suicidal risk. In a 2023 study, > 90% of veterans reported that it is appropriate to be asked about thoughts of suicide during primary care visits, and about one-half agreed that veterans should be asked about suicidal thoughts at every visit. 

For many, though, the level of trust they have with HCPs makes or breaks whether they discuss their suicidal ideation. Higher ratings of the therapeutic relationship with clinicians are associated with more frequent disclosure. However, the screen-positive group demonstrated higher rates of inaccurate disclosure than the screen-negative group. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is possible that screen-positive individuals did not fully disclose their thoughts on the initial screen, or did not fully disclose the severity of their thoughts during follow-up evaluations. Individuals who disclose suicidal thoughts during initial screening may be ambivalent about disclosure and/or become more concerned about consequences of disclosure as additional evaluation ensues. 

A 2013 study of 34 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans found that veterans felt trying to suppress and avoid thoughts of suicide was “burdensome and exhausting.” Despite this, they often failed to disclose severe and pervasive suicidal thoughts when screened. Among the reasons was that they perceived the templated computer reminder process as “perfunctory and disrespectful.”

Research has found that HCPs who focuses on building relationships, demonstrates genuineness and empathy, and uses straightforward and understandable language promotes the trust that can result in more honest disclosure of suicidal thoughts. In the “inaccurate disclosure” study, some veterans reported they did not understand the screening questions, or the questions did not make sense to them. This aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that how HCPs and researchers conceptualize suicidal thoughts may not fit with patients’ experiences. A lack of shared terminology, they note, “may confound how we think about ‘under-disclosure,’ such that perhaps patients may not be trying to hide their thoughts so much as not finding screening questions applicable to their unique situations or experiences.”

AGA leaders came from across the country to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 with a major goal in mind: to advocate for gastroenterology with their lawmakers during our annual Advocacy Day. For our leaders, showing up on behalf of their patients is a privilege and an opportunity to represent the specialty with individuals who have a role in dictating health care policy.

In total, 124 members, patient advocates, and AGA staffers met with lawmakers and attended 130 meetings – 70 unique House districts and 60 unique Senate districts – with Republican and Democratic staff.

Our advocacy contingent represented the diversity of the country with 30 states represented from coast-to-coast. No matter the home state, everyone was united in the calls to Congress: to reform prior authorization, increase digestive disease funding, and secure a permanent solution for Medicare physician reimbursement.

As in past years, patient advocates participated alongside GI clinicians and researchers.

Their participation underscored the importance of including diverse voices. As patients with chronic health conditions, they were able to convey how their experiences navigating insurance barriers or managing delays to care as prescribed by their health care provider impacted their well-being and quality of life.

Throughout the day, patient advocates and GIs alike were encouraged by their meetings with congressional staffers. Conversations were constructive, engaging, and meaningful as everyone collaborated on common ground: seeking solutions to ensure GI patients have timely access to care that they need.

Many AGA leaders appreciated the value of being able to unite with colleagues to advocate and share their firsthand experiences in the lab or clinic in meetings with House and Senate staffers.

While Advocacy Day lasts a single day, its value hasn’t diminished. Thanks to the engagement and participation of the more than 100 AGA leaders and patient advocates, we can continue to build positive relationships with influential policymakers and make strides to improve and protect access to GI patient care.

AGA leaders came from across the country to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 with a major goal in mind: to advocate for gastroenterology with their lawmakers during our annual Advocacy Day. For our leaders, showing up on behalf of their patients is a privilege and an opportunity to represent the specialty with individuals who have a role in dictating health care policy.

In total, 124 members, patient advocates, and AGA staffers met with lawmakers and attended 130 meetings – 70 unique House districts and 60 unique Senate districts – with Republican and Democratic staff.

Our advocacy contingent represented the diversity of the country with 30 states represented from coast-to-coast. No matter the home state, everyone was united in the calls to Congress: to reform prior authorization, increase digestive disease funding, and secure a permanent solution for Medicare physician reimbursement.

As in past years, patient advocates participated alongside GI clinicians and researchers.

Their participation underscored the importance of including diverse voices. As patients with chronic health conditions, they were able to convey how their experiences navigating insurance barriers or managing delays to care as prescribed by their health care provider impacted their well-being and quality of life.

Throughout the day, patient advocates and GIs alike were encouraged by their meetings with congressional staffers. Conversations were constructive, engaging, and meaningful as everyone collaborated on common ground: seeking solutions to ensure GI patients have timely access to care that they need.

Many AGA leaders appreciated the value of being able to unite with colleagues to advocate and share their firsthand experiences in the lab or clinic in meetings with House and Senate staffers.

While Advocacy Day lasts a single day, its value hasn’t diminished. Thanks to the engagement and participation of the more than 100 AGA leaders and patient advocates, we can continue to build positive relationships with influential policymakers and make strides to improve and protect access to GI patient care.

AGA leaders came from across the country to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 with a major goal in mind: to advocate for gastroenterology with their lawmakers during our annual Advocacy Day. For our leaders, showing up on behalf of their patients is a privilege and an opportunity to represent the specialty with individuals who have a role in dictating health care policy.

In total, 124 members, patient advocates, and AGA staffers met with lawmakers and attended 130 meetings – 70 unique House districts and 60 unique Senate districts – with Republican and Democratic staff.

Our advocacy contingent represented the diversity of the country with 30 states represented from coast-to-coast. No matter the home state, everyone was united in the calls to Congress: to reform prior authorization, increase digestive disease funding, and secure a permanent solution for Medicare physician reimbursement.

As in past years, patient advocates participated alongside GI clinicians and researchers.

Their participation underscored the importance of including diverse voices. As patients with chronic health conditions, they were able to convey how their experiences navigating insurance barriers or managing delays to care as prescribed by their health care provider impacted their well-being and quality of life.

Throughout the day, patient advocates and GIs alike were encouraged by their meetings with congressional staffers. Conversations were constructive, engaging, and meaningful as everyone collaborated on common ground: seeking solutions to ensure GI patients have timely access to care that they need.

Many AGA leaders appreciated the value of being able to unite with colleagues to advocate and share their firsthand experiences in the lab or clinic in meetings with House and Senate staffers.

While Advocacy Day lasts a single day, its value hasn’t diminished. Thanks to the engagement and participation of the more than 100 AGA leaders and patient advocates, we can continue to build positive relationships with influential policymakers and make strides to improve and protect access to GI patient care.

BERLIN — Pairing a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) proved feasible and yielded clinically relevant upper gastrointestinal (GI) findings, including malignancies and lesions requiring ongoing surveillance, according to an interim analysis from the TOGAS study.

“There was an abundance of benign but clinically relevant findings,” said lead investigator Jan Bornschein, MD, gastroenterologist at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, who presented the interim resuts of the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

While the study found upper GI neoplasia in only 1.4% of participants, 17.8% of individuals were marked for upper GI endoscopic surveillance.

The results may inform how Europe develops gastric cancer prevention programs alongside those for colorectal cancer, said Bornschein. “If we can combine the upper GI endoscopy with other modalities [colonoscopy], the more likelihood there is that you can have a one-stop test package,” he said. “A combination, particularly for bowel and stomach, is more feasible and also more cost-effective. So far, the findings show that it’s definitely a strategy that, in my opinion, is worth implementing.”

Bornschein and the TOGAS study group hope that the combined approach will prove workable across diverse European settings and will help identify a spectrum of upper GI pathology, from cancers and dysplasia to atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, that can meaningfully affect follow-up surveillance.

 

Mixed Rates of GI Cancers Across Europe and the US

These findings come amid data showing rising rates of early-onset (younger than 50 years) GI cancers in the US, including colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, and esophageal tumors. These trends, previously reported by this news organization, point to environmental and lifestyle drivers, strengthening the case for earlier detection and risk-tailored strategies for upper GI neoplasia and preneoplastic conditions detected during existing colorectal cancer screening pathways.

However, Bornschein noted that prevalence varies considerably across Europe. “There are areas, particularly in the Eastern regions, and in some parts of the West, for example, Portugal, that have a very high incidence of GI cancers. In the UK or in Germany, we have noticed a decline over the years, so the numbers are actually much better than they used to be.”

The study is the second in a series of three TOGAS pilot studies and was conducted across eight centers (France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain) in adults aged 50-74 years attending screening or polyp-surveillance colonoscopy. 

A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-aligned protocol defining image documentation, biopsy sampling, and quality parameters was followed to ensure a standardized approach. “Marked preneoplastic change” was defined as gastric glandular atrophy or intestinal metaplasia at the Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment/Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment stage III-IV and/or Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia > 5, triggering a need for endoscopic surveillance.

Data were gathered on colonoscopy findings (including polyp surveillance and family history), EGD findings plus biopsies, serum pepsinogen, and Helicobacter pylori serology. Outcome measures included the prevalence of gastric cancer and preneoplastic conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of pepsinogen testing, comparisons between national settings, the relevance of upper endoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive cases, and overall H pylori prevalence.

 

Neoplasia and Preneoplasia Found

A total of 846 participants were analyzed. At baseline, the mean age was 62 years, 52.2% were men, and 84.2% were White, despite efforts to recruit a more diverse population. Around 390 participants drank alcohol, and 190 smoked tobacco.

A total of 37.8% of participants had undergone prior EGD, of which 94.7% were performed more than 3 years before the study start. The history of GI surgery was 13.7%, and the history of cancer was 14.5%. Around 11% took aspirin, and 14% took proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). “We were surprised at the low prevalence of PPI use,” remarked Bornschein. “It was also good news that around half were never smokers.”

Key results for upper GI neoplasia included six patients (0.7%) with gastric cancers, three (0.4%) with esophageal cancers, and five (0.6%) with duodenal tumors. H pylori positivity was found in 303 patients (35.8%), with an additional 81 (9.6%) reporting a history of eradication.

Colorectal findings included 15 patients (1.8%) with cancers and colon polyps in 503 (59.5%) participants.

Regarding preneoplastic conditions, endoscopy identified intestinal metaplasia in 174 patients (20.6%), of which 65 (7.7%) were multifocal. Atrophy was observed in 220 patients (26.0%), with 59 (7.0%) showing multifocal atrophic changes. Both intestinal metaplasia and atrophy were found together in 105 (12.4%) patients. Barrett’s esophagus was detected in 31 (3.7%) patients.

“I’d really like to highlight these further benign gastric findings,” said Bornschein. These included gastric ulcers in 28 (3.3%) patients, erosive gastritis in 245 (29.0%) patients, esophageal ulcers in three (0.4%) patients, Los Angeles Community College District classification esophagitis in 13 (1.5%) patients, and duodenal ulcers in 10 (1.2%) patients. “These were asymptomatic, but we were able to identify them,” he noted.

“We’ve had a very low rate of complications (0.01%),” he added.” I don’t want to jinx that now. These were basically related to sedation.”

 

PROSPERO: Early Detection of Upper GI Conditions in a UK Population

Massimiliano di Pietro, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England, and the principal investigator of the PROSPERO study, which aimed to determine the prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in routine endoscopy in the UK, commented on the findings. The TOGAS study focuses on asymptomatic individuals referred for colonoscopy and examines the value of performing an upper GI endoscopy at the same time, he explained. “This approach might identify upper GI conditions that require monitoring, in particular early cancer.”

“On the other hand, the PROSPERO study focuses on patients referred for upper GI symptoms and diagnosis,” he said. Preliminary data from that study, presented during the same session as the TOGAS trial, showed a 13.6% prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in a symptomatic UK patient population referred for endoscopy.

“In some respects, the findings were similar, particularly the rate of upper GI cancer at 1.4%, although there were differences in the prevalence of premalignant conditions,” he noted. “This may be explained by the fact that TOGAS is a European study, while PROSPERO is UK-based, where the distribution of upper GI cancers differs, with more esophageal adenocarcinoma vs gastric adenocarcinoma.”

Reflecting on both of the studies, Di Pietro said they are “really important in fulfilling an unmet need in the quality of upper GI endoscopy. Currently, there are no diagnostic quality indicators in upper GI endoscopy, so it’s difficult to rate the performance of endoscopists in the same way as we can in lower GI. It’s really important to understand the population prevalence, both in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, of premalignant and malignant upper GI conditions.”

TOGAS 2 is recruiting until February 2026, with 1200 of a potential 1600 participants recruited to date. The data will be used for implementation modeling and to inform quality indicators for future screening programs. Final results and plans for a follow-up study are expected in 2026.

Bornschein declared receiving advisory and speaker fees from Flynn Pharma and Juvisé Pharmaceuticals. Di Pietro reported having no disclosures relevant to the studies discussed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Pairing a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) proved feasible and yielded clinically relevant upper gastrointestinal (GI) findings, including malignancies and lesions requiring ongoing surveillance, according to an interim analysis from the TOGAS study.

“There was an abundance of benign but clinically relevant findings,” said lead investigator Jan Bornschein, MD, gastroenterologist at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, who presented the interim resuts of the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

While the study found upper GI neoplasia in only 1.4% of participants, 17.8% of individuals were marked for upper GI endoscopic surveillance.

The results may inform how Europe develops gastric cancer prevention programs alongside those for colorectal cancer, said Bornschein. “If we can combine the upper GI endoscopy with other modalities [colonoscopy], the more likelihood there is that you can have a one-stop test package,” he said. “A combination, particularly for bowel and stomach, is more feasible and also more cost-effective. So far, the findings show that it’s definitely a strategy that, in my opinion, is worth implementing.”

Bornschein and the TOGAS study group hope that the combined approach will prove workable across diverse European settings and will help identify a spectrum of upper GI pathology, from cancers and dysplasia to atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, that can meaningfully affect follow-up surveillance.

 

Mixed Rates of GI Cancers Across Europe and the US

These findings come amid data showing rising rates of early-onset (younger than 50 years) GI cancers in the US, including colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, and esophageal tumors. These trends, previously reported by this news organization, point to environmental and lifestyle drivers, strengthening the case for earlier detection and risk-tailored strategies for upper GI neoplasia and preneoplastic conditions detected during existing colorectal cancer screening pathways.

However, Bornschein noted that prevalence varies considerably across Europe. “There are areas, particularly in the Eastern regions, and in some parts of the West, for example, Portugal, that have a very high incidence of GI cancers. In the UK or in Germany, we have noticed a decline over the years, so the numbers are actually much better than they used to be.”

The study is the second in a series of three TOGAS pilot studies and was conducted across eight centers (France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain) in adults aged 50-74 years attending screening or polyp-surveillance colonoscopy. 

A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-aligned protocol defining image documentation, biopsy sampling, and quality parameters was followed to ensure a standardized approach. “Marked preneoplastic change” was defined as gastric glandular atrophy or intestinal metaplasia at the Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment/Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment stage III-IV and/or Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia > 5, triggering a need for endoscopic surveillance.

Data were gathered on colonoscopy findings (including polyp surveillance and family history), EGD findings plus biopsies, serum pepsinogen, and Helicobacter pylori serology. Outcome measures included the prevalence of gastric cancer and preneoplastic conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of pepsinogen testing, comparisons between national settings, the relevance of upper endoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive cases, and overall H pylori prevalence.

 

Neoplasia and Preneoplasia Found

A total of 846 participants were analyzed. At baseline, the mean age was 62 years, 52.2% were men, and 84.2% were White, despite efforts to recruit a more diverse population. Around 390 participants drank alcohol, and 190 smoked tobacco.

A total of 37.8% of participants had undergone prior EGD, of which 94.7% were performed more than 3 years before the study start. The history of GI surgery was 13.7%, and the history of cancer was 14.5%. Around 11% took aspirin, and 14% took proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). “We were surprised at the low prevalence of PPI use,” remarked Bornschein. “It was also good news that around half were never smokers.”

Key results for upper GI neoplasia included six patients (0.7%) with gastric cancers, three (0.4%) with esophageal cancers, and five (0.6%) with duodenal tumors. H pylori positivity was found in 303 patients (35.8%), with an additional 81 (9.6%) reporting a history of eradication.

Colorectal findings included 15 patients (1.8%) with cancers and colon polyps in 503 (59.5%) participants.

Regarding preneoplastic conditions, endoscopy identified intestinal metaplasia in 174 patients (20.6%), of which 65 (7.7%) were multifocal. Atrophy was observed in 220 patients (26.0%), with 59 (7.0%) showing multifocal atrophic changes. Both intestinal metaplasia and atrophy were found together in 105 (12.4%) patients. Barrett’s esophagus was detected in 31 (3.7%) patients.

“I’d really like to highlight these further benign gastric findings,” said Bornschein. These included gastric ulcers in 28 (3.3%) patients, erosive gastritis in 245 (29.0%) patients, esophageal ulcers in three (0.4%) patients, Los Angeles Community College District classification esophagitis in 13 (1.5%) patients, and duodenal ulcers in 10 (1.2%) patients. “These were asymptomatic, but we were able to identify them,” he noted.

“We’ve had a very low rate of complications (0.01%),” he added.” I don’t want to jinx that now. These were basically related to sedation.”

 

PROSPERO: Early Detection of Upper GI Conditions in a UK Population

Massimiliano di Pietro, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England, and the principal investigator of the PROSPERO study, which aimed to determine the prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in routine endoscopy in the UK, commented on the findings. The TOGAS study focuses on asymptomatic individuals referred for colonoscopy and examines the value of performing an upper GI endoscopy at the same time, he explained. “This approach might identify upper GI conditions that require monitoring, in particular early cancer.”

“On the other hand, the PROSPERO study focuses on patients referred for upper GI symptoms and diagnosis,” he said. Preliminary data from that study, presented during the same session as the TOGAS trial, showed a 13.6% prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in a symptomatic UK patient population referred for endoscopy.

“In some respects, the findings were similar, particularly the rate of upper GI cancer at 1.4%, although there were differences in the prevalence of premalignant conditions,” he noted. “This may be explained by the fact that TOGAS is a European study, while PROSPERO is UK-based, where the distribution of upper GI cancers differs, with more esophageal adenocarcinoma vs gastric adenocarcinoma.”

Reflecting on both of the studies, Di Pietro said they are “really important in fulfilling an unmet need in the quality of upper GI endoscopy. Currently, there are no diagnostic quality indicators in upper GI endoscopy, so it’s difficult to rate the performance of endoscopists in the same way as we can in lower GI. It’s really important to understand the population prevalence, both in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, of premalignant and malignant upper GI conditions.”

TOGAS 2 is recruiting until February 2026, with 1200 of a potential 1600 participants recruited to date. The data will be used for implementation modeling and to inform quality indicators for future screening programs. Final results and plans for a follow-up study are expected in 2026.

Bornschein declared receiving advisory and speaker fees from Flynn Pharma and Juvisé Pharmaceuticals. Di Pietro reported having no disclosures relevant to the studies discussed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Pairing a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) proved feasible and yielded clinically relevant upper gastrointestinal (GI) findings, including malignancies and lesions requiring ongoing surveillance, according to an interim analysis from the TOGAS study.

“There was an abundance of benign but clinically relevant findings,” said lead investigator Jan Bornschein, MD, gastroenterologist at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, who presented the interim resuts of the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.

While the study found upper GI neoplasia in only 1.4% of participants, 17.8% of individuals were marked for upper GI endoscopic surveillance.

The results may inform how Europe develops gastric cancer prevention programs alongside those for colorectal cancer, said Bornschein. “If we can combine the upper GI endoscopy with other modalities [colonoscopy], the more likelihood there is that you can have a one-stop test package,” he said. “A combination, particularly for bowel and stomach, is more feasible and also more cost-effective. So far, the findings show that it’s definitely a strategy that, in my opinion, is worth implementing.”

Bornschein and the TOGAS study group hope that the combined approach will prove workable across diverse European settings and will help identify a spectrum of upper GI pathology, from cancers and dysplasia to atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, that can meaningfully affect follow-up surveillance.

 

Mixed Rates of GI Cancers Across Europe and the US

These findings come amid data showing rising rates of early-onset (younger than 50 years) GI cancers in the US, including colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, and esophageal tumors. These trends, previously reported by this news organization, point to environmental and lifestyle drivers, strengthening the case for earlier detection and risk-tailored strategies for upper GI neoplasia and preneoplastic conditions detected during existing colorectal cancer screening pathways.

However, Bornschein noted that prevalence varies considerably across Europe. “There are areas, particularly in the Eastern regions, and in some parts of the West, for example, Portugal, that have a very high incidence of GI cancers. In the UK or in Germany, we have noticed a decline over the years, so the numbers are actually much better than they used to be.”

The study is the second in a series of three TOGAS pilot studies and was conducted across eight centers (France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain) in adults aged 50-74 years attending screening or polyp-surveillance colonoscopy. 

A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-aligned protocol defining image documentation, biopsy sampling, and quality parameters was followed to ensure a standardized approach. “Marked preneoplastic change” was defined as gastric glandular atrophy or intestinal metaplasia at the Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment/Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment stage III-IV and/or Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia > 5, triggering a need for endoscopic surveillance.

Data were gathered on colonoscopy findings (including polyp surveillance and family history), EGD findings plus biopsies, serum pepsinogen, and Helicobacter pylori serology. Outcome measures included the prevalence of gastric cancer and preneoplastic conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of pepsinogen testing, comparisons between national settings, the relevance of upper endoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive cases, and overall H pylori prevalence.

 

Neoplasia and Preneoplasia Found

A total of 846 participants were analyzed. At baseline, the mean age was 62 years, 52.2% were men, and 84.2% were White, despite efforts to recruit a more diverse population. Around 390 participants drank alcohol, and 190 smoked tobacco.

A total of 37.8% of participants had undergone prior EGD, of which 94.7% were performed more than 3 years before the study start. The history of GI surgery was 13.7%, and the history of cancer was 14.5%. Around 11% took aspirin, and 14% took proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). “We were surprised at the low prevalence of PPI use,” remarked Bornschein. “It was also good news that around half were never smokers.”

Key results for upper GI neoplasia included six patients (0.7%) with gastric cancers, three (0.4%) with esophageal cancers, and five (0.6%) with duodenal tumors. H pylori positivity was found in 303 patients (35.8%), with an additional 81 (9.6%) reporting a history of eradication.

Colorectal findings included 15 patients (1.8%) with cancers and colon polyps in 503 (59.5%) participants.

Regarding preneoplastic conditions, endoscopy identified intestinal metaplasia in 174 patients (20.6%), of which 65 (7.7%) were multifocal. Atrophy was observed in 220 patients (26.0%), with 59 (7.0%) showing multifocal atrophic changes. Both intestinal metaplasia and atrophy were found together in 105 (12.4%) patients. Barrett’s esophagus was detected in 31 (3.7%) patients.

“I’d really like to highlight these further benign gastric findings,” said Bornschein. These included gastric ulcers in 28 (3.3%) patients, erosive gastritis in 245 (29.0%) patients, esophageal ulcers in three (0.4%) patients, Los Angeles Community College District classification esophagitis in 13 (1.5%) patients, and duodenal ulcers in 10 (1.2%) patients. “These were asymptomatic, but we were able to identify them,” he noted.

“We’ve had a very low rate of complications (0.01%),” he added.” I don’t want to jinx that now. These were basically related to sedation.”

 

PROSPERO: Early Detection of Upper GI Conditions in a UK Population

Massimiliano di Pietro, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England, and the principal investigator of the PROSPERO study, which aimed to determine the prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in routine endoscopy in the UK, commented on the findings. The TOGAS study focuses on asymptomatic individuals referred for colonoscopy and examines the value of performing an upper GI endoscopy at the same time, he explained. “This approach might identify upper GI conditions that require monitoring, in particular early cancer.”

“On the other hand, the PROSPERO study focuses on patients referred for upper GI symptoms and diagnosis,” he said. Preliminary data from that study, presented during the same session as the TOGAS trial, showed a 13.6% prevalence of premalignant upper GI conditions in a symptomatic UK patient population referred for endoscopy.

“In some respects, the findings were similar, particularly the rate of upper GI cancer at 1.4%, although there were differences in the prevalence of premalignant conditions,” he noted. “This may be explained by the fact that TOGAS is a European study, while PROSPERO is UK-based, where the distribution of upper GI cancers differs, with more esophageal adenocarcinoma vs gastric adenocarcinoma.”

Reflecting on both of the studies, Di Pietro said they are “really important in fulfilling an unmet need in the quality of upper GI endoscopy. Currently, there are no diagnostic quality indicators in upper GI endoscopy, so it’s difficult to rate the performance of endoscopists in the same way as we can in lower GI. It’s really important to understand the population prevalence, both in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, of premalignant and malignant upper GI conditions.”

TOGAS 2 is recruiting until February 2026, with 1200 of a potential 1600 participants recruited to date. The data will be used for implementation modeling and to inform quality indicators for future screening programs. Final results and plans for a follow-up study are expected in 2026.

Bornschein declared receiving advisory and speaker fees from Flynn Pharma and Juvisé Pharmaceuticals. Di Pietro reported having no disclosures relevant to the studies discussed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA –Replacing the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has several important “pros” and “some minor cons,” Maria Effenberger, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck, Berlin, Germany, told attendees at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025 in Vienna, Austria.

In her presentation, “Sense and Nonsense of the New Nomenclature,” Effenberger highlighted the clinical implications of the new liver-disease terminology and pointed to a few factors still needing to be sorted out.

Both NAFLD and MASLD are steatotic liver diseasesand, notably, there are few differences between the two in clinical studies, which makes the terminology shift easier, said Effenberger. She cited a recent study showing demographic and clinical profiles of individuals classified as NAFLD and MASLD in the US were “strikingly similar,” as were the accuracy of the noninvasive tests and all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for both conditions.

However, “the important thing about MASLD is that the term is really connected to metabolic dysfunction,” said Effenberger. To be diagnosed with MASLD, patients with liver disease need to have at least one of five cardiometabolic abnormalities: a high BMI — over 25 in White people and over 23 in Asian people; type 2 diabetes (T2D) or prediabetes; arterial hypertension; high levels of triglycerides; or a low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

“MASLD is a systemic disease, and that term represents it much better than only looking at it as a hepatological disease,” Effenberger said. “Many factors, especially inflammatory ones, influence steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis.” These include influences from adipose tissue, the gut microbiome, the brain, a hypocaloric diet, and from steatosis of the liver itself. Proinflammatory cytokines induced by the disease can lead to inflammation throughout the body, with clinical outcomes such as stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease.

 

MASLD, MetALD, or ALD?

“What is important now,” said Effenberger, is that “every patient who has liver disease should be asked two questions.” The first question is whether the patient has any of the cardiometabolic criteria outlined above. Second, is the patient consuming alcohol? 

If the patient has one of the cardiometabolic criteria but doesn’t consume alcohol, “we are straight at the diagnosis of MASLD,” she explained. If the patient does consume alcohol, it depends on how much.

Patients who have at least one cardiometabolic risk factor and consume 140-350 g for men and 210-420 g for women are considered to have Metabolic and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (MetALD). And those with steatotic liver disease who drink alcohol above the MetALD thresholds are considered to have ALD.

Effenberger pointed to two “cons” of the new nomenclature that need to be clarified. Although MetALD has poorer outcomes than MASLD, “it’s really hard to differentiate between ALD and MASLD,” she said. Yet the distinction is important because risks for cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and overall mortality increase more for patients diagnosed with ALD vs MASLD.

“Do MASLD patients drink alcohol? Yes they do,” Effenberger said. “And if you have MASLD and another trigger factor like alcohol, the rates of mortality, morbidity and cancer go up.”

Moderator Laurent Castera, MD, PhD, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France, noted that a “pro” of the new nomenclature is that it is “shedding light on the importance of alcohol because when we discuss steatotic liver disease or MASLD, alcohol is always the elephant in the room,” he said. “We need to increase the awareness that even in the absence of alcohol, you can still develop cirrhosis if you have severe metabolic risk factors.”

On the other hand, he said, “We desperately need more statistics on the true prevalence of alcohol consumption. While studies suggest the prevalence is low, at around 4% or 5%, that does not match the reality, in my opinion.”

Effenberger agreed. There’s a problem in trying to zero in on alcohol consumption because of the stigma attached to it, she said. She pointed to an Austrian study assessing patients who are diagnosed with MASLD. The researchers asked them, “Do you drink alcohol?” and all the participants said “no.” However, after completing a questionnaire designed to identify alcohol use disorders, and undergoing glucuronide tests in the urine and hair, it became clear that 25%-30% of these patients actually drank alcohol on a regular basis.

 

Cancer, Cirrhosis, CVD

MASLD is a trigger for cancer, especially HCC, Effenberger said. A recent review affirmed that MASLD is strongly associated with HCC, especially in Southeast Asia and India. The same study showed that many patients with MASLD are getting HCC without cirrhosis, and their cancer is often detected at a later stage, however, it’s not yet clear why they are getting HCC, and further study is needed.

In addition, MASLD is also associated with higher rates of extrahepatic cancers, including cancers of the skin and androgenic cancers. This, too, requires further investigation.

Regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Effenberger emphasized that cardiometabolic diseases are strongly linked to each other. “Therefore, if you have diabetes and MASLD, the rates of atherosclerosis and of heart insufficiency and arteriosclerotic events like stroke and heart attacks go up, leading to the question of whether a CVD risk assessment is necessary in patients with MASLD.” 

One recent study suggests that yes, it is, she reported. “If a patient has MASLD and cardiometabolic risk factors, and a risk score that suggests the patient is at increased risk of CVD for 10 years, then a CT scan of the arteries of the heart is important. The increased risk could also lead to intensified medical therapy, including GLP-1s or SGLT2s.”

During the Q&A, one attendee asked whether all patients with noncirrhotic MASLD should be screened for HCC, given the increased risk. Effenberger agreed that would be the best way to identify those at high risk; however, she said, “I think science is not in a state where you can clearly define which patients will be at high risk, and so we don’t have any guidelines for that.”

Another attendee asked why HCC is more common in Indians and Asians. Effenberger said, “We don’t know, but it is likely that there is an HCC-driven genetic risk factor.”

 

Remaining Questions

And finally, there’s the question of “what do we do with burnt-out MASLD?” Effenberger asked. “We know the fat content of the liver decreases when liver severity goes up. Therefore, we have a lot of patients with cirrhosis whose disease is not defined as steatotic liver because the liver fat content is no longer more than 5%.”

The decrease in fat is an ongoing process, and therefore, these patients with MASLD and advanced hepatic disease need to be better represented in the nomenclature, she suggested.

No funding information was provided. Effenberger declared working with Ipsen as a potential conflict.

 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA –Replacing the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has several important “pros” and “some minor cons,” Maria Effenberger, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck, Berlin, Germany, told attendees at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025 in Vienna, Austria.

In her presentation, “Sense and Nonsense of the New Nomenclature,” Effenberger highlighted the clinical implications of the new liver-disease terminology and pointed to a few factors still needing to be sorted out.

Both NAFLD and MASLD are steatotic liver diseasesand, notably, there are few differences between the two in clinical studies, which makes the terminology shift easier, said Effenberger. She cited a recent study showing demographic and clinical profiles of individuals classified as NAFLD and MASLD in the US were “strikingly similar,” as were the accuracy of the noninvasive tests and all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for both conditions.

However, “the important thing about MASLD is that the term is really connected to metabolic dysfunction,” said Effenberger. To be diagnosed with MASLD, patients with liver disease need to have at least one of five cardiometabolic abnormalities: a high BMI — over 25 in White people and over 23 in Asian people; type 2 diabetes (T2D) or prediabetes; arterial hypertension; high levels of triglycerides; or a low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

“MASLD is a systemic disease, and that term represents it much better than only looking at it as a hepatological disease,” Effenberger said. “Many factors, especially inflammatory ones, influence steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis.” These include influences from adipose tissue, the gut microbiome, the brain, a hypocaloric diet, and from steatosis of the liver itself. Proinflammatory cytokines induced by the disease can lead to inflammation throughout the body, with clinical outcomes such as stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease.

 

MASLD, MetALD, or ALD?

“What is important now,” said Effenberger, is that “every patient who has liver disease should be asked two questions.” The first question is whether the patient has any of the cardiometabolic criteria outlined above. Second, is the patient consuming alcohol? 

If the patient has one of the cardiometabolic criteria but doesn’t consume alcohol, “we are straight at the diagnosis of MASLD,” she explained. If the patient does consume alcohol, it depends on how much.

Patients who have at least one cardiometabolic risk factor and consume 140-350 g for men and 210-420 g for women are considered to have Metabolic and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (MetALD). And those with steatotic liver disease who drink alcohol above the MetALD thresholds are considered to have ALD.

Effenberger pointed to two “cons” of the new nomenclature that need to be clarified. Although MetALD has poorer outcomes than MASLD, “it’s really hard to differentiate between ALD and MASLD,” she said. Yet the distinction is important because risks for cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and overall mortality increase more for patients diagnosed with ALD vs MASLD.

“Do MASLD patients drink alcohol? Yes they do,” Effenberger said. “And if you have MASLD and another trigger factor like alcohol, the rates of mortality, morbidity and cancer go up.”

Moderator Laurent Castera, MD, PhD, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France, noted that a “pro” of the new nomenclature is that it is “shedding light on the importance of alcohol because when we discuss steatotic liver disease or MASLD, alcohol is always the elephant in the room,” he said. “We need to increase the awareness that even in the absence of alcohol, you can still develop cirrhosis if you have severe metabolic risk factors.”

On the other hand, he said, “We desperately need more statistics on the true prevalence of alcohol consumption. While studies suggest the prevalence is low, at around 4% or 5%, that does not match the reality, in my opinion.”

Effenberger agreed. There’s a problem in trying to zero in on alcohol consumption because of the stigma attached to it, she said. She pointed to an Austrian study assessing patients who are diagnosed with MASLD. The researchers asked them, “Do you drink alcohol?” and all the participants said “no.” However, after completing a questionnaire designed to identify alcohol use disorders, and undergoing glucuronide tests in the urine and hair, it became clear that 25%-30% of these patients actually drank alcohol on a regular basis.

 

Cancer, Cirrhosis, CVD

MASLD is a trigger for cancer, especially HCC, Effenberger said. A recent review affirmed that MASLD is strongly associated with HCC, especially in Southeast Asia and India. The same study showed that many patients with MASLD are getting HCC without cirrhosis, and their cancer is often detected at a later stage, however, it’s not yet clear why they are getting HCC, and further study is needed.

In addition, MASLD is also associated with higher rates of extrahepatic cancers, including cancers of the skin and androgenic cancers. This, too, requires further investigation.

Regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Effenberger emphasized that cardiometabolic diseases are strongly linked to each other. “Therefore, if you have diabetes and MASLD, the rates of atherosclerosis and of heart insufficiency and arteriosclerotic events like stroke and heart attacks go up, leading to the question of whether a CVD risk assessment is necessary in patients with MASLD.” 

One recent study suggests that yes, it is, she reported. “If a patient has MASLD and cardiometabolic risk factors, and a risk score that suggests the patient is at increased risk of CVD for 10 years, then a CT scan of the arteries of the heart is important. The increased risk could also lead to intensified medical therapy, including GLP-1s or SGLT2s.”

During the Q&A, one attendee asked whether all patients with noncirrhotic MASLD should be screened for HCC, given the increased risk. Effenberger agreed that would be the best way to identify those at high risk; however, she said, “I think science is not in a state where you can clearly define which patients will be at high risk, and so we don’t have any guidelines for that.”

Another attendee asked why HCC is more common in Indians and Asians. Effenberger said, “We don’t know, but it is likely that there is an HCC-driven genetic risk factor.”

 

Remaining Questions

And finally, there’s the question of “what do we do with burnt-out MASLD?” Effenberger asked. “We know the fat content of the liver decreases when liver severity goes up. Therefore, we have a lot of patients with cirrhosis whose disease is not defined as steatotic liver because the liver fat content is no longer more than 5%.”

The decrease in fat is an ongoing process, and therefore, these patients with MASLD and advanced hepatic disease need to be better represented in the nomenclature, she suggested.

No funding information was provided. Effenberger declared working with Ipsen as a potential conflict.

 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA –Replacing the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has several important “pros” and “some minor cons,” Maria Effenberger, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck, Berlin, Germany, told attendees at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025 in Vienna, Austria.

In her presentation, “Sense and Nonsense of the New Nomenclature,” Effenberger highlighted the clinical implications of the new liver-disease terminology and pointed to a few factors still needing to be sorted out.

Both NAFLD and MASLD are steatotic liver diseasesand, notably, there are few differences between the two in clinical studies, which makes the terminology shift easier, said Effenberger. She cited a recent study showing demographic and clinical profiles of individuals classified as NAFLD and MASLD in the US were “strikingly similar,” as were the accuracy of the noninvasive tests and all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for both conditions.

However, “the important thing about MASLD is that the term is really connected to metabolic dysfunction,” said Effenberger. To be diagnosed with MASLD, patients with liver disease need to have at least one of five cardiometabolic abnormalities: a high BMI — over 25 in White people and over 23 in Asian people; type 2 diabetes (T2D) or prediabetes; arterial hypertension; high levels of triglycerides; or a low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

“MASLD is a systemic disease, and that term represents it much better than only looking at it as a hepatological disease,” Effenberger said. “Many factors, especially inflammatory ones, influence steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis.” These include influences from adipose tissue, the gut microbiome, the brain, a hypocaloric diet, and from steatosis of the liver itself. Proinflammatory cytokines induced by the disease can lead to inflammation throughout the body, with clinical outcomes such as stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease.

 

MASLD, MetALD, or ALD?

“What is important now,” said Effenberger, is that “every patient who has liver disease should be asked two questions.” The first question is whether the patient has any of the cardiometabolic criteria outlined above. Second, is the patient consuming alcohol? 

If the patient has one of the cardiometabolic criteria but doesn’t consume alcohol, “we are straight at the diagnosis of MASLD,” she explained. If the patient does consume alcohol, it depends on how much.

Patients who have at least one cardiometabolic risk factor and consume 140-350 g for men and 210-420 g for women are considered to have Metabolic and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (MetALD). And those with steatotic liver disease who drink alcohol above the MetALD thresholds are considered to have ALD.

Effenberger pointed to two “cons” of the new nomenclature that need to be clarified. Although MetALD has poorer outcomes than MASLD, “it’s really hard to differentiate between ALD and MASLD,” she said. Yet the distinction is important because risks for cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and overall mortality increase more for patients diagnosed with ALD vs MASLD.

“Do MASLD patients drink alcohol? Yes they do,” Effenberger said. “And if you have MASLD and another trigger factor like alcohol, the rates of mortality, morbidity and cancer go up.”

Moderator Laurent Castera, MD, PhD, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France, noted that a “pro” of the new nomenclature is that it is “shedding light on the importance of alcohol because when we discuss steatotic liver disease or MASLD, alcohol is always the elephant in the room,” he said. “We need to increase the awareness that even in the absence of alcohol, you can still develop cirrhosis if you have severe metabolic risk factors.”

On the other hand, he said, “We desperately need more statistics on the true prevalence of alcohol consumption. While studies suggest the prevalence is low, at around 4% or 5%, that does not match the reality, in my opinion.”

Effenberger agreed. There’s a problem in trying to zero in on alcohol consumption because of the stigma attached to it, she said. She pointed to an Austrian study assessing patients who are diagnosed with MASLD. The researchers asked them, “Do you drink alcohol?” and all the participants said “no.” However, after completing a questionnaire designed to identify alcohol use disorders, and undergoing glucuronide tests in the urine and hair, it became clear that 25%-30% of these patients actually drank alcohol on a regular basis.

 

Cancer, Cirrhosis, CVD

MASLD is a trigger for cancer, especially HCC, Effenberger said. A recent review affirmed that MASLD is strongly associated with HCC, especially in Southeast Asia and India. The same study showed that many patients with MASLD are getting HCC without cirrhosis, and their cancer is often detected at a later stage, however, it’s not yet clear why they are getting HCC, and further study is needed.

In addition, MASLD is also associated with higher rates of extrahepatic cancers, including cancers of the skin and androgenic cancers. This, too, requires further investigation.

Regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, Effenberger emphasized that cardiometabolic diseases are strongly linked to each other. “Therefore, if you have diabetes and MASLD, the rates of atherosclerosis and of heart insufficiency and arteriosclerotic events like stroke and heart attacks go up, leading to the question of whether a CVD risk assessment is necessary in patients with MASLD.” 

One recent study suggests that yes, it is, she reported. “If a patient has MASLD and cardiometabolic risk factors, and a risk score that suggests the patient is at increased risk of CVD for 10 years, then a CT scan of the arteries of the heart is important. The increased risk could also lead to intensified medical therapy, including GLP-1s or SGLT2s.”

During the Q&A, one attendee asked whether all patients with noncirrhotic MASLD should be screened for HCC, given the increased risk. Effenberger agreed that would be the best way to identify those at high risk; however, she said, “I think science is not in a state where you can clearly define which patients will be at high risk, and so we don’t have any guidelines for that.”

Another attendee asked why HCC is more common in Indians and Asians. Effenberger said, “We don’t know, but it is likely that there is an HCC-driven genetic risk factor.”

 

Remaining Questions

And finally, there’s the question of “what do we do with burnt-out MASLD?” Effenberger asked. “We know the fat content of the liver decreases when liver severity goes up. Therefore, we have a lot of patients with cirrhosis whose disease is not defined as steatotic liver because the liver fat content is no longer more than 5%.”

The decrease in fat is an ongoing process, and therefore, these patients with MASLD and advanced hepatic disease need to be better represented in the nomenclature, she suggested.

No funding information was provided. Effenberger declared working with Ipsen as a potential conflict.

 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.

 

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.

 

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.