User login
Polypectomy Best Practices Not Routinely Followed in US
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of more than 1.8 million colonoscopies found.
“We expected to find some variations in polypectomy technique, but the results were surprising; overall, cold snare usage was much lower than expected, given that this is the recommended method for removing most small polyps,” Seth Crockett, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in the October issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Using Gastroenterology Quality Improvement Consortium Registry data, Crockett and colleagues analyzed more than 1.8 million colonoscopies performed by 4601 endoscopists between 2019 and 2022 across 702 sites. All colonoscopies involved removal of polyps < 1 cm; lesions of this size are commonly found in screening colonoscopies, and detection is crucial to early cancer prevention.
The researchers found striking variation in polypectomy technique. Guideline-based cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was used in only 58% of cases (and as a single device in only 51%), whereas cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) accounted for 35% and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 11%.
The fact that CSP was used in fewer than 60% of cases represents “an important quality gap,” the authors wrote, adding that the fact that more than 10% of colonoscopies used HSP suggests that “some patients harboring low-risk lesions may be exposed to excess risk related to these practice variations.”
And while recommendations around the use of CFP are more nuanced (based largely on forceps type and polyp size), the “high frequency of CFP also suggests nonadherence to best practices,” they noted.
Gastroenterologists More Apt to Follow Guidance
Polypectomy technique varied by polyp type. CFP was more common in cases where only hyperplastic polyps were removed compared with cases with tubular adenomas (45% vs 30%, respectively). CSP use was highest in cases where only sessile serrated lesions were removed (66%) compared with cases with only tubular adenomas (61%) or hyperplastic polyps (37%).
There was also considerable variation by provider specialty.
Gastroenterologists (compared with non-GI specialists) used HSP less (4% vs 8%) and CSP more (40% vs 34%). Colonoscopies performed with GI fellows were more likely to use CFP (31% vs 21%) and less likely to use HSP (1% vs 5%) compared with colonoscopies without fellows.
“It was somewhat reassuring that colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations, which suggests that dedicated endoscopy training is likely an important factor driving high-quality colonoscopy,” Crockett told GI & Hepatology News.
“Unexpectedly,” polypectomy technique also differed dramatically by geographic region, he said. CFP was used more than twice as often in the Northeast (31%) as in the Midwest (14%), whereas CSP was used more frequently in the Midwest (52%) than in the Northeast (32%).
“We suspect that much of the variation is related to differences in training, preferences, habits, and evolution of colonoscopy practice over time,” Crockett said. “More research is needed on the underlying drivers of this variation, and how differences in polypectomy technique impact both the safety and efficacy of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer,” he said.
“As a specialty, we need to continue to work on disseminating guideline recommendations regarding colonoscopy quality, monitoring adherence to evidence-based practices, and working to address gaps in quality where they exist,” he added.
‘Concerning, Surprising, and Disappointing’
David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, called the results “concerning, surprising, and disappointing” and not consistent with the most current quality recommendations that advocate cold snare for most polyps less than 1 cm in size.
“Cold snare polypectomy has been shown not only to be more effective but also takes less time to perform, relative to cold biopsy,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Johnson told GI & Hepatology News, “Inadequate lesion resection and variation in resection quality are major issues for colonoscopy quality. Those who perform colonoscopies need to be up-to-date with evidence-based quality standards — as well as held accountable if [there is] discordant practice — if we are to optimize the cancer prevention benefits of quality colonoscopy.”
Limitations of the current analysis include lack of extensive patient information and inability to further stratify polyps < 1 cm by size.
The study had no commercial funding. Crockett had no disclosures. Johnson disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Durvalumab Plus FLOT Ups Survival in Early Upper-GI Cancer
BERLIN — , according to findings presented at the 2025 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
Experts said the survival benefit further supports perioperative durvalumab plus FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) as the new standard of care for patients with localized gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Earlier results from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting (ASCO) in June, showed that the addition of durvalumab improved event-free survival compared with FLOT alone.
The findings presented at ESMO show that at 36 months, overall survival was 68.6% among patients who received durvalumab + FLOT vs 61.9% among those given FLOT plus a placebo. After a median of 43 months, the survival advantage in the durvalumab group was statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96; P = .021) and “more importantly, clinically meaningful,” said lead investigator Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
The results “strongly support the use of perioperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy with FLOT as a new global standard of care for patients with localized gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma,” Tabernero said.
Speaking as discussant for the session, Sylvie Lorenzen, MD, PhD, Technische Universität München in Munich, Germany, was enthusiastic that the previously reported trends in MATTERHORN held strong.
“The shape of the curves presented at ASCO was already very positive,” she said. “And now, with a longer follow-up, more events, and a higher overall survival maturity, they reach statistical significance. It looks like the magnitude of the effect increases with longer follow-up, and this is important for our patients.”
The trial randomly assigned 948 patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma to receive either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks, plus FLOT for 2 cycles before surgery and then again after, followed by durvalumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 10 cycles.
Patients were stratified according to lymph node status, as well as PD-L1 expression (≥ 1% or < 1%, according to the Tumor Area Positivity score.)
The improvement in overall survival with durvalumab was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, Tabernero said, with the same hazard ratios (0.79) in both the positive and negative subgroups.
However, there was no clear overall survival benefit in certain other subgroups, including women (n = 266; HR, 0.91), those with node-negative disease (n = 277; HR, 1.01), and those with diffuse histology (n = 249; HR, 0.98).
Lorenzen said that clinicians should “pay attention” to those patient subgroups, as they seem to benefit less from the addition of durvalumab. However, she cautioned that the findings were based on small patient numbers and the confidence intervals were wide.
Tabernero also reported additional data on event-free survival (EFS). Overall, the durvalumab/FLOT combination improved EFS among patients with any degree of pathological response and irrespective of lymph node status at surgery.
Regarding nodal staging, which was done in 800 patients, the percentage who achieved negative nodal status was higher in the durvalumab group (58.2%) vs the placebo group (44.8%). However, the improvement in EFS with durvalumab was comparable for node-negative (HR, 0.74) and node-positive (HR, 0.77) patients.
Lorenzen said that overall, the results provide a solid answer to the question, “Is it time to change practice?”
“I think MATTERHORN gives us the largest dataset and answers this question satisfactorily,” she said. Given that overall survival improved regardless of PD-L1 expression, she added, the combination of durvalumab and FLOT should be offered to “all our patient subgroups.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Tabernero made numerous disclosures, including relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, and Daichii Sankyo. Lorenzen disclosed financial interests in or serving as an invited speaker for Servier, Lilly, MSD, and BMS.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
BERLIN — , according to findings presented at the 2025 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
Experts said the survival benefit further supports perioperative durvalumab plus FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) as the new standard of care for patients with localized gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Earlier results from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting (ASCO) in June, showed that the addition of durvalumab improved event-free survival compared with FLOT alone.
The findings presented at ESMO show that at 36 months, overall survival was 68.6% among patients who received durvalumab + FLOT vs 61.9% among those given FLOT plus a placebo. After a median of 43 months, the survival advantage in the durvalumab group was statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96; P = .021) and “more importantly, clinically meaningful,” said lead investigator Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
The results “strongly support the use of perioperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy with FLOT as a new global standard of care for patients with localized gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma,” Tabernero said.
Speaking as discussant for the session, Sylvie Lorenzen, MD, PhD, Technische Universität München in Munich, Germany, was enthusiastic that the previously reported trends in MATTERHORN held strong.
“The shape of the curves presented at ASCO was already very positive,” she said. “And now, with a longer follow-up, more events, and a higher overall survival maturity, they reach statistical significance. It looks like the magnitude of the effect increases with longer follow-up, and this is important for our patients.”
The trial randomly assigned 948 patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma to receive either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks, plus FLOT for 2 cycles before surgery and then again after, followed by durvalumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 10 cycles.
Patients were stratified according to lymph node status, as well as PD-L1 expression (≥ 1% or < 1%, according to the Tumor Area Positivity score.)
The improvement in overall survival with durvalumab was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, Tabernero said, with the same hazard ratios (0.79) in both the positive and negative subgroups.
However, there was no clear overall survival benefit in certain other subgroups, including women (n = 266; HR, 0.91), those with node-negative disease (n = 277; HR, 1.01), and those with diffuse histology (n = 249; HR, 0.98).
Lorenzen said that clinicians should “pay attention” to those patient subgroups, as they seem to benefit less from the addition of durvalumab. However, she cautioned that the findings were based on small patient numbers and the confidence intervals were wide.
Tabernero also reported additional data on event-free survival (EFS). Overall, the durvalumab/FLOT combination improved EFS among patients with any degree of pathological response and irrespective of lymph node status at surgery.
Regarding nodal staging, which was done in 800 patients, the percentage who achieved negative nodal status was higher in the durvalumab group (58.2%) vs the placebo group (44.8%). However, the improvement in EFS with durvalumab was comparable for node-negative (HR, 0.74) and node-positive (HR, 0.77) patients.
Lorenzen said that overall, the results provide a solid answer to the question, “Is it time to change practice?”
“I think MATTERHORN gives us the largest dataset and answers this question satisfactorily,” she said. Given that overall survival improved regardless of PD-L1 expression, she added, the combination of durvalumab and FLOT should be offered to “all our patient subgroups.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Tabernero made numerous disclosures, including relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, and Daichii Sankyo. Lorenzen disclosed financial interests in or serving as an invited speaker for Servier, Lilly, MSD, and BMS.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
BERLIN — , according to findings presented at the 2025 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
Experts said the survival benefit further supports perioperative durvalumab plus FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) as the new standard of care for patients with localized gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Earlier results from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting (ASCO) in June, showed that the addition of durvalumab improved event-free survival compared with FLOT alone.
The findings presented at ESMO show that at 36 months, overall survival was 68.6% among patients who received durvalumab + FLOT vs 61.9% among those given FLOT plus a placebo. After a median of 43 months, the survival advantage in the durvalumab group was statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96; P = .021) and “more importantly, clinically meaningful,” said lead investigator Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
The results “strongly support the use of perioperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy with FLOT as a new global standard of care for patients with localized gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma,” Tabernero said.
Speaking as discussant for the session, Sylvie Lorenzen, MD, PhD, Technische Universität München in Munich, Germany, was enthusiastic that the previously reported trends in MATTERHORN held strong.
“The shape of the curves presented at ASCO was already very positive,” she said. “And now, with a longer follow-up, more events, and a higher overall survival maturity, they reach statistical significance. It looks like the magnitude of the effect increases with longer follow-up, and this is important for our patients.”
The trial randomly assigned 948 patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma to receive either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks, plus FLOT for 2 cycles before surgery and then again after, followed by durvalumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 10 cycles.
Patients were stratified according to lymph node status, as well as PD-L1 expression (≥ 1% or < 1%, according to the Tumor Area Positivity score.)
The improvement in overall survival with durvalumab was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, Tabernero said, with the same hazard ratios (0.79) in both the positive and negative subgroups.
However, there was no clear overall survival benefit in certain other subgroups, including women (n = 266; HR, 0.91), those with node-negative disease (n = 277; HR, 1.01), and those with diffuse histology (n = 249; HR, 0.98).
Lorenzen said that clinicians should “pay attention” to those patient subgroups, as they seem to benefit less from the addition of durvalumab. However, she cautioned that the findings were based on small patient numbers and the confidence intervals were wide.
Tabernero also reported additional data on event-free survival (EFS). Overall, the durvalumab/FLOT combination improved EFS among patients with any degree of pathological response and irrespective of lymph node status at surgery.
Regarding nodal staging, which was done in 800 patients, the percentage who achieved negative nodal status was higher in the durvalumab group (58.2%) vs the placebo group (44.8%). However, the improvement in EFS with durvalumab was comparable for node-negative (HR, 0.74) and node-positive (HR, 0.77) patients.
Lorenzen said that overall, the results provide a solid answer to the question, “Is it time to change practice?”
“I think MATTERHORN gives us the largest dataset and answers this question satisfactorily,” she said. Given that overall survival improved regardless of PD-L1 expression, she added, the combination of durvalumab and FLOT should be offered to “all our patient subgroups.”
The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Tabernero made numerous disclosures, including relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, and Daichii Sankyo. Lorenzen disclosed financial interests in or serving as an invited speaker for Servier, Lilly, MSD, and BMS.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Half of Patients Skip Repeat Stool Tests for CRC Screening
A large real-world study found that
Among those who did repeat the test, the average delay was 3 months before COVID and increased to 5 months during the pandemic, the authors reported in BMJ Public Health.
“Stool tests are relatively easy to complete at home and mailed for testing, and they are inexpensive, but they must be completed annually. In contrast, colonoscopies are more invasive and require more time away from work but only need to be repeated every 5-10 years,” Staci J Wendt, PhD, director, health research accelerator, Providence Research Network, Providence, Rhode Island, told GI & Hepatology News.
In the end, “the best colorectal cancer screening test is the one that gets done,” Wendt said.
“This is why we stress the importance of patients and their doctor having these discussions together and deciding which screening is the most preferred method for the individual patient,” she added.
Stool Tests Gaining Traction
Adults are increasingly turning to at-home stool tests for CRC screening — a trend that accelerated during the pandemic. Yet, there is limited data on whether patients undergo repeat stool tests following initial negative test results.
Wendt and her colleagues documented rates of repeat preventative stool tests by analyzing electronic medical records from Providence St Joseph Health, a large health system with 51 hospitals and over 1000 clinics across seven western US states.
They divided their analysis into two periods based on the onset of the pandemic. The pre-COVID onset period spanned January 2018 to February 2020 and the post-COVID period spanned March 2020 to February 2022.
“The pandemic is a salient time to conduct this study because it resulted in a dramatic decrease in colonoscopies, which were partially replaced by stool tests. This partial replacement of colonoscopies by stool tests has led other studies to conclude that stool tests mitigated gaps in CRC screening during the pandemic. But gaps may persist if patients do not undergo repeat testing,” the study team explained.
Their sample included 403,085 patients. Among those with an initial negative stool test, the share who obtained a timely repeat screening ranged from 38% to 49% across the study years, confirming that “most patients do not undergo the recommended repeat screening after their initial stool test,” the researchers said.
Among adults who do a repeat test, delays were common. The average lag to the follow-up test was 3months on average, increasing to about 5 months amid COVID — almost half as long as the preventative screening period of stool tests (12 months).
“These gaps could delay detection of CRC and subsequent treatment, potentially resulting in higher mortality. These gaps are particularly important as more and more patients use stool tests instead of colonoscopes for CRC screening,” the researchers wrote.
Screening patterns shifted markedly during the pandemic.
Not surprisingly, the volume of colonoscopies declined substantially after the onset of the pandemic and stayed low through the study’s end. In contrast, the volume of at-home stool tests was increasing before the pandemic and accelerated during the pandemic.
“Given this increase in stool tests, it will be increasingly important to focus on improving long-term adherence to screening through outreach, policies and programs,” the researchers said.
A Multilevel Approach
Wendt said health systems that are incorporating proactive measures like sending stool kits to patients who are eligible for screening, should ensure that these screening kits and information are sent annually and that it is stressed that the screening must happen every year.
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the poor adherence to repeat stool tests for CRC screening seen in this study is “not surprising.”
“We know that adherence goes down with each consecutive screening round and what is really needed is an organized program to keep the level of adherence up,” Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
Shaukat agreed that boosting adherence to stool tests requires a “multilevel approach.”
She cited the success of the CRC screening program implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program includes proactive and targeted outreach to members who are overdue for screening and mailed fecal immunochemical test kits for at-home use.
As reported previously by GI & Hepatology News, the program has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities.
The program has doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening. And, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved and largely eliminated long-standing differences by race and ethnicity.
The study had no commercial funding. Wendt and Shaukat declared having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A large real-world study found that
Among those who did repeat the test, the average delay was 3 months before COVID and increased to 5 months during the pandemic, the authors reported in BMJ Public Health.
“Stool tests are relatively easy to complete at home and mailed for testing, and they are inexpensive, but they must be completed annually. In contrast, colonoscopies are more invasive and require more time away from work but only need to be repeated every 5-10 years,” Staci J Wendt, PhD, director, health research accelerator, Providence Research Network, Providence, Rhode Island, told GI & Hepatology News.
In the end, “the best colorectal cancer screening test is the one that gets done,” Wendt said.
“This is why we stress the importance of patients and their doctor having these discussions together and deciding which screening is the most preferred method for the individual patient,” she added.
Stool Tests Gaining Traction
Adults are increasingly turning to at-home stool tests for CRC screening — a trend that accelerated during the pandemic. Yet, there is limited data on whether patients undergo repeat stool tests following initial negative test results.
Wendt and her colleagues documented rates of repeat preventative stool tests by analyzing electronic medical records from Providence St Joseph Health, a large health system with 51 hospitals and over 1000 clinics across seven western US states.
They divided their analysis into two periods based on the onset of the pandemic. The pre-COVID onset period spanned January 2018 to February 2020 and the post-COVID period spanned March 2020 to February 2022.
“The pandemic is a salient time to conduct this study because it resulted in a dramatic decrease in colonoscopies, which were partially replaced by stool tests. This partial replacement of colonoscopies by stool tests has led other studies to conclude that stool tests mitigated gaps in CRC screening during the pandemic. But gaps may persist if patients do not undergo repeat testing,” the study team explained.
Their sample included 403,085 patients. Among those with an initial negative stool test, the share who obtained a timely repeat screening ranged from 38% to 49% across the study years, confirming that “most patients do not undergo the recommended repeat screening after their initial stool test,” the researchers said.
Among adults who do a repeat test, delays were common. The average lag to the follow-up test was 3months on average, increasing to about 5 months amid COVID — almost half as long as the preventative screening period of stool tests (12 months).
“These gaps could delay detection of CRC and subsequent treatment, potentially resulting in higher mortality. These gaps are particularly important as more and more patients use stool tests instead of colonoscopes for CRC screening,” the researchers wrote.
Screening patterns shifted markedly during the pandemic.
Not surprisingly, the volume of colonoscopies declined substantially after the onset of the pandemic and stayed low through the study’s end. In contrast, the volume of at-home stool tests was increasing before the pandemic and accelerated during the pandemic.
“Given this increase in stool tests, it will be increasingly important to focus on improving long-term adherence to screening through outreach, policies and programs,” the researchers said.
A Multilevel Approach
Wendt said health systems that are incorporating proactive measures like sending stool kits to patients who are eligible for screening, should ensure that these screening kits and information are sent annually and that it is stressed that the screening must happen every year.
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the poor adherence to repeat stool tests for CRC screening seen in this study is “not surprising.”
“We know that adherence goes down with each consecutive screening round and what is really needed is an organized program to keep the level of adherence up,” Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
Shaukat agreed that boosting adherence to stool tests requires a “multilevel approach.”
She cited the success of the CRC screening program implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program includes proactive and targeted outreach to members who are overdue for screening and mailed fecal immunochemical test kits for at-home use.
As reported previously by GI & Hepatology News, the program has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities.
The program has doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening. And, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved and largely eliminated long-standing differences by race and ethnicity.
The study had no commercial funding. Wendt and Shaukat declared having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A large real-world study found that
Among those who did repeat the test, the average delay was 3 months before COVID and increased to 5 months during the pandemic, the authors reported in BMJ Public Health.
“Stool tests are relatively easy to complete at home and mailed for testing, and they are inexpensive, but they must be completed annually. In contrast, colonoscopies are more invasive and require more time away from work but only need to be repeated every 5-10 years,” Staci J Wendt, PhD, director, health research accelerator, Providence Research Network, Providence, Rhode Island, told GI & Hepatology News.
In the end, “the best colorectal cancer screening test is the one that gets done,” Wendt said.
“This is why we stress the importance of patients and their doctor having these discussions together and deciding which screening is the most preferred method for the individual patient,” she added.
Stool Tests Gaining Traction
Adults are increasingly turning to at-home stool tests for CRC screening — a trend that accelerated during the pandemic. Yet, there is limited data on whether patients undergo repeat stool tests following initial negative test results.
Wendt and her colleagues documented rates of repeat preventative stool tests by analyzing electronic medical records from Providence St Joseph Health, a large health system with 51 hospitals and over 1000 clinics across seven western US states.
They divided their analysis into two periods based on the onset of the pandemic. The pre-COVID onset period spanned January 2018 to February 2020 and the post-COVID period spanned March 2020 to February 2022.
“The pandemic is a salient time to conduct this study because it resulted in a dramatic decrease in colonoscopies, which were partially replaced by stool tests. This partial replacement of colonoscopies by stool tests has led other studies to conclude that stool tests mitigated gaps in CRC screening during the pandemic. But gaps may persist if patients do not undergo repeat testing,” the study team explained.
Their sample included 403,085 patients. Among those with an initial negative stool test, the share who obtained a timely repeat screening ranged from 38% to 49% across the study years, confirming that “most patients do not undergo the recommended repeat screening after their initial stool test,” the researchers said.
Among adults who do a repeat test, delays were common. The average lag to the follow-up test was 3months on average, increasing to about 5 months amid COVID — almost half as long as the preventative screening period of stool tests (12 months).
“These gaps could delay detection of CRC and subsequent treatment, potentially resulting in higher mortality. These gaps are particularly important as more and more patients use stool tests instead of colonoscopes for CRC screening,” the researchers wrote.
Screening patterns shifted markedly during the pandemic.
Not surprisingly, the volume of colonoscopies declined substantially after the onset of the pandemic and stayed low through the study’s end. In contrast, the volume of at-home stool tests was increasing before the pandemic and accelerated during the pandemic.
“Given this increase in stool tests, it will be increasingly important to focus on improving long-term adherence to screening through outreach, policies and programs,” the researchers said.
A Multilevel Approach
Wendt said health systems that are incorporating proactive measures like sending stool kits to patients who are eligible for screening, should ensure that these screening kits and information are sent annually and that it is stressed that the screening must happen every year.
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, NYU Langone Health, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the poor adherence to repeat stool tests for CRC screening seen in this study is “not surprising.”
“We know that adherence goes down with each consecutive screening round and what is really needed is an organized program to keep the level of adherence up,” Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
Shaukat agreed that boosting adherence to stool tests requires a “multilevel approach.”
She cited the success of the CRC screening program implemented across Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The program includes proactive and targeted outreach to members who are overdue for screening and mailed fecal immunochemical test kits for at-home use.
As reported previously by GI & Hepatology News, the program has made a huge difference in CRC incidence, deaths, and racial disparities.
The program has doubled the proportion of people up to date with screening. And, within about 10 years, cancer rates were cut by a third, deaths were halved and largely eliminated long-standing differences by race and ethnicity.
The study had no commercial funding. Wendt and Shaukat declared having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Menopausal Hormone Therapy Lowers Upper GI Cancer Risk
BERLIN — , according to a large population-based study across five Nordic countries. The association appeared strongest for combined estrogen-progestin and systemic formulations.
“This is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies to date supporting the hypothesis of an inverse association between MHT and risk of esophago-gastric cancer,” said Victoria Wocalewski, MD, from the Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.
There was a decreased risk for all investigated cancers in MHT users, but the strongest association was observed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), said Wocalewski. In addition, “there were discrete dose-dependent results for [EAC] and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) but not for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).”
Large Population-Based Study
Previous research has suggested that hormonal changes could partly explain the male predominance in esophageal and gastric cancers, but evidence from large, well-controlled datasets has been limited.
“Cancer rates in women increase significantly after age of 60, so it has been hypothesized that this pattern is linked to declined levels of estrogen that comes with menopause,” said Wocalewski, explaining the rationale for the study.
“Some studies looking at MHT use have indicated a possible protective effect, but with some contradictory results and type-specific variations,” Wocalewski noted. “Our study aimed to investigate these previous findings using a larger study sample.”
The population-based case-control study drew on prospectively collected data from the NordGETS database including national prescription, cancer, and population registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden spanning 1994-2020. In total, 19,518 women with esophago-gastric cancer were compared with 195,094 controls randomly selected from the general population, and matched for age, calendar year, and country (in a 1:10 ratio). Women were 45 years or over with a diagnosis of EAC, ESCC, or GAC.
In total there were 5000 cases of EAC, 4401 of ESCC, and 10,117 of GAC, with the median ages being 74, 72, and 75 years, respectively; most cases of EAC and ESCC were found in Denmark, and most cases of GAC were in Sweden.
The investigators categorized participants by defined daily doses (DDDs) of MHT into three equal sized categories: low (< 158 DDDs), intermediate (158-848 DDDs), and high (> 848 DDDs). MHT was defined as systemic or local, and estrogen only or combined with progesterone. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for three major cancer outcomes of EAC, ESCC, and GAC, adjusted for known confounders such as age, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori eradication, and concomitant use of statins or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, Wocalewski noted that they did not adjust for socio-economic factors.
Significant Reductions Across Esophago-Gastric Cancers
Compared with nonusers, women with any MHT exposure had a markedly reduced risk of EAC with adjusted ORs (aORs) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.81) for low-use, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for intermediate-use, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for high-use groups. Various adjustments were made for obesity, reflux, statins, and NSAIDs, as well as smoking, alcohol use, and H pylori eradication.
Similar inverse associations were seen for ESCC with aORs of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79) across the dose categories, and for GAC where risk decreased progressively from 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86) across increasing MHT doses.
When stratified by hormone formulation, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy and systemic MHT conferred the strongest risk reduction. For example, systemic MHT use was associated with aORs of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74) for EAC and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88) for GAC, while local (vaginal) preparations showed slightly weaker associations at 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92), respectively.
In EAC, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy led to an OR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.73) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87) for women on estrogen alone. Similar results were found for ESCC. For GAC, combination resulted in an aOR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.97) in estrogen only therapy respectively.
“Our results reinforce the concept that estrogenic signaling may influence tumor development in the upper GI tract,” said Wocalewski. “Understanding these mechanisms could help identify at-risk populations and inform prevention strategies,” she added, noting that, “hormonal effects on epithelial tight junctions and nitric oxide synthesis in the gastrointestinal tract” would have an influence on smooth muscle cells.
Link Between Hormones and GI Pathology
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Jan Bornschein, MD, University of Oxford, UK, who was not involved in the research, said the results are “highly relevant.”
“We’ve seen for a long time a link between hormones and GI pathology, however, it has been poorly investigated and the whole mechanisms are not understood, so it’s welcome that this group is moving forward and investigating this in a structured way,” he said.
Another delegate cautioned that MHT was associated with a risk for other non- gastrointestinal cancers. “I think it’s extremely important, because there are data on associations [of MHT] with breast cancer and also endometrial cancer. It’s good to see that it may help and reduce this cancer, but we have to be really careful about the others.”
Wocalewski reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Bornschein has no disclosures relevant to this study. The study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and supported by national cancer and prescription registry data from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — , according to a large population-based study across five Nordic countries. The association appeared strongest for combined estrogen-progestin and systemic formulations.
“This is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies to date supporting the hypothesis of an inverse association between MHT and risk of esophago-gastric cancer,” said Victoria Wocalewski, MD, from the Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.
There was a decreased risk for all investigated cancers in MHT users, but the strongest association was observed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), said Wocalewski. In addition, “there were discrete dose-dependent results for [EAC] and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) but not for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).”
Large Population-Based Study
Previous research has suggested that hormonal changes could partly explain the male predominance in esophageal and gastric cancers, but evidence from large, well-controlled datasets has been limited.
“Cancer rates in women increase significantly after age of 60, so it has been hypothesized that this pattern is linked to declined levels of estrogen that comes with menopause,” said Wocalewski, explaining the rationale for the study.
“Some studies looking at MHT use have indicated a possible protective effect, but with some contradictory results and type-specific variations,” Wocalewski noted. “Our study aimed to investigate these previous findings using a larger study sample.”
The population-based case-control study drew on prospectively collected data from the NordGETS database including national prescription, cancer, and population registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden spanning 1994-2020. In total, 19,518 women with esophago-gastric cancer were compared with 195,094 controls randomly selected from the general population, and matched for age, calendar year, and country (in a 1:10 ratio). Women were 45 years or over with a diagnosis of EAC, ESCC, or GAC.
In total there were 5000 cases of EAC, 4401 of ESCC, and 10,117 of GAC, with the median ages being 74, 72, and 75 years, respectively; most cases of EAC and ESCC were found in Denmark, and most cases of GAC were in Sweden.
The investigators categorized participants by defined daily doses (DDDs) of MHT into three equal sized categories: low (< 158 DDDs), intermediate (158-848 DDDs), and high (> 848 DDDs). MHT was defined as systemic or local, and estrogen only or combined with progesterone. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for three major cancer outcomes of EAC, ESCC, and GAC, adjusted for known confounders such as age, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori eradication, and concomitant use of statins or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, Wocalewski noted that they did not adjust for socio-economic factors.
Significant Reductions Across Esophago-Gastric Cancers
Compared with nonusers, women with any MHT exposure had a markedly reduced risk of EAC with adjusted ORs (aORs) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.81) for low-use, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for intermediate-use, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for high-use groups. Various adjustments were made for obesity, reflux, statins, and NSAIDs, as well as smoking, alcohol use, and H pylori eradication.
Similar inverse associations were seen for ESCC with aORs of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79) across the dose categories, and for GAC where risk decreased progressively from 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86) across increasing MHT doses.
When stratified by hormone formulation, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy and systemic MHT conferred the strongest risk reduction. For example, systemic MHT use was associated with aORs of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74) for EAC and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88) for GAC, while local (vaginal) preparations showed slightly weaker associations at 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92), respectively.
In EAC, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy led to an OR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.73) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87) for women on estrogen alone. Similar results were found for ESCC. For GAC, combination resulted in an aOR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.97) in estrogen only therapy respectively.
“Our results reinforce the concept that estrogenic signaling may influence tumor development in the upper GI tract,” said Wocalewski. “Understanding these mechanisms could help identify at-risk populations and inform prevention strategies,” she added, noting that, “hormonal effects on epithelial tight junctions and nitric oxide synthesis in the gastrointestinal tract” would have an influence on smooth muscle cells.
Link Between Hormones and GI Pathology
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Jan Bornschein, MD, University of Oxford, UK, who was not involved in the research, said the results are “highly relevant.”
“We’ve seen for a long time a link between hormones and GI pathology, however, it has been poorly investigated and the whole mechanisms are not understood, so it’s welcome that this group is moving forward and investigating this in a structured way,” he said.
Another delegate cautioned that MHT was associated with a risk for other non- gastrointestinal cancers. “I think it’s extremely important, because there are data on associations [of MHT] with breast cancer and also endometrial cancer. It’s good to see that it may help and reduce this cancer, but we have to be really careful about the others.”
Wocalewski reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Bornschein has no disclosures relevant to this study. The study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and supported by national cancer and prescription registry data from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — , according to a large population-based study across five Nordic countries. The association appeared strongest for combined estrogen-progestin and systemic formulations.
“This is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies to date supporting the hypothesis of an inverse association between MHT and risk of esophago-gastric cancer,” said Victoria Wocalewski, MD, from the Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2025.
There was a decreased risk for all investigated cancers in MHT users, but the strongest association was observed for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), said Wocalewski. In addition, “there were discrete dose-dependent results for [EAC] and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) but not for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).”
Large Population-Based Study
Previous research has suggested that hormonal changes could partly explain the male predominance in esophageal and gastric cancers, but evidence from large, well-controlled datasets has been limited.
“Cancer rates in women increase significantly after age of 60, so it has been hypothesized that this pattern is linked to declined levels of estrogen that comes with menopause,” said Wocalewski, explaining the rationale for the study.
“Some studies looking at MHT use have indicated a possible protective effect, but with some contradictory results and type-specific variations,” Wocalewski noted. “Our study aimed to investigate these previous findings using a larger study sample.”
The population-based case-control study drew on prospectively collected data from the NordGETS database including national prescription, cancer, and population registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden spanning 1994-2020. In total, 19,518 women with esophago-gastric cancer were compared with 195,094 controls randomly selected from the general population, and matched for age, calendar year, and country (in a 1:10 ratio). Women were 45 years or over with a diagnosis of EAC, ESCC, or GAC.
In total there were 5000 cases of EAC, 4401 of ESCC, and 10,117 of GAC, with the median ages being 74, 72, and 75 years, respectively; most cases of EAC and ESCC were found in Denmark, and most cases of GAC were in Sweden.
The investigators categorized participants by defined daily doses (DDDs) of MHT into three equal sized categories: low (< 158 DDDs), intermediate (158-848 DDDs), and high (> 848 DDDs). MHT was defined as systemic or local, and estrogen only or combined with progesterone. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for three major cancer outcomes of EAC, ESCC, and GAC, adjusted for known confounders such as age, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, reflux disease, Helicobacter pylori eradication, and concomitant use of statins or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, Wocalewski noted that they did not adjust for socio-economic factors.
Significant Reductions Across Esophago-Gastric Cancers
Compared with nonusers, women with any MHT exposure had a markedly reduced risk of EAC with adjusted ORs (aORs) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.81) for low-use, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for intermediate-use, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.75) for high-use groups. Various adjustments were made for obesity, reflux, statins, and NSAIDs, as well as smoking, alcohol use, and H pylori eradication.
Similar inverse associations were seen for ESCC with aORs of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62-0.77), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79) across the dose categories, and for GAC where risk decreased progressively from 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86) across increasing MHT doses.
When stratified by hormone formulation, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy and systemic MHT conferred the strongest risk reduction. For example, systemic MHT use was associated with aORs of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61-0.74) for EAC and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88) for GAC, while local (vaginal) preparations showed slightly weaker associations at 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92), respectively.
In EAC, combined estrogen-progesterone therapy led to an OR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.73) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87) for women on estrogen alone. Similar results were found for ESCC. For GAC, combination resulted in an aOR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.97) in estrogen only therapy respectively.
“Our results reinforce the concept that estrogenic signaling may influence tumor development in the upper GI tract,” said Wocalewski. “Understanding these mechanisms could help identify at-risk populations and inform prevention strategies,” she added, noting that, “hormonal effects on epithelial tight junctions and nitric oxide synthesis in the gastrointestinal tract” would have an influence on smooth muscle cells.
Link Between Hormones and GI Pathology
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Jan Bornschein, MD, University of Oxford, UK, who was not involved in the research, said the results are “highly relevant.”
“We’ve seen for a long time a link between hormones and GI pathology, however, it has been poorly investigated and the whole mechanisms are not understood, so it’s welcome that this group is moving forward and investigating this in a structured way,” he said.
Another delegate cautioned that MHT was associated with a risk for other non- gastrointestinal cancers. “I think it’s extremely important, because there are data on associations [of MHT] with breast cancer and also endometrial cancer. It’s good to see that it may help and reduce this cancer, but we have to be really careful about the others.”
Wocalewski reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Bornschein has no disclosures relevant to this study. The study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and supported by national cancer and prescription registry data from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Combining Upper-Lower GI Screening Feasible, Effective
BERLIN — , 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 — , 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 — , 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.
Prevention and Risk-Based Surveillance Key to Curbing HCC
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BERLIN — according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).
The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 .
“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.
“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.
HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.
Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance
In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.
EASL’s key recommendations include:
- Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
- Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
- Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
- A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
- Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions
Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.
Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”
Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”
Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.
Barriers to Screening Uptake
HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.
Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”
However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.
Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.
Expanded Training and Public Health Measures
The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.
The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.
“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.
Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM UEG WEEK 2025
Oral Microbes Tied to Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could oral microbiome profiling help spot people at risk for pancreatic cancer?
It may be possible, according to a recent analysis published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that , which could be a step toward earlier detection of the deadly malignancy.
“We identified 27 individual bacterial and fungal species significantly associated with pancreatic cancer development,” said Jiyoung Ahn, PhD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
“If validated, oral microbiome profiling could serve as a noninvasive biomarker to identify individuals at elevated risk who might benefit from enhanced surveillance,” Ahn told GI & Hepatology News by email.
Rates of pancreatic cancer are on the rise. But detecting the disease before it becomes unresectable has remained an elusive goal, and the US Preventive Services Task Force discourages screening of asymptomatic adults.
For their study, Ahn and her colleagues analyzed data from 122,000 participants who provided oral wash samples as part of two cohort studies conducted in the US. The researchers used whole-genome shotgun sequencing and internal transcribed spacer sequencing to identity the bacterial and fungal species in the samples, respectively.
Over a median follow-up of nearly 9 years, 445 people developed pancreatic cancer and were matched with 445 who did not. Three oral bacterial periodontal pathogens — Porphyromonas gingivalis (odds ratio [OR], 1.27), Eubacterium nodatum (OR, 1.42), and Parvimonas micra (OR, 1.36) — as well as the fungal genus Candida were all linked to significantly increased odds of developing pancreatic cancer.
In a bacteriome-wide scan, the researchers pinpointed another 20 oral bacteria associated with pancreatic cancer — eight with a decreased risk and 13 with an increased risk for the disease.
The researchers also calculated a microbial risk score, which was the weighted sum of the relative abundance of bacterial and fungal species. In a meta-analysis of data from the two cohorts, the microbial risk score derived from 23 bacterial species and four fungal species, including various Candida species, was associated with pancreatic cancer (multivariate OR per 1-SD increase in the score, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.63-4.51).
“The oral microbiota holds promise as a biomarker to identify individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer, potentially enabling personalized pancreatic cancer prevention,” Ahn and her colleagues concluded.
But Gil Welch, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has written about screening for decades, isn’t so sure.
Given the “impressive volume of information” included in the analysis, “it is not surprising that the investigators are able to create a microbial risk score (based on 27 species of bacteria and fungi) that is highly related to pancreatic cancer,” Welch said. “The authors are careful to emphasize these are associations, not causal relationships.”
But even if the relationship were causal, finding more people with the malignancy can also have downsides, said Welch.
In a study out last year, Welch and colleagues found that while the incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans has been rising, mortality rates in this demographic haven’t budged, suggesting a potential for overdiagnosis.
“Screening for pancreatic cancer has never been shown to reduce pancreatic cancer mortality,” Welch told GI & Hepatology News. “Why screen large swaths of the population simply to enumerate ‘risk factors’ for an unproven benefit that, at best, could help only a few? Meanwhile, the burdens for everyone else are real: the mental and financial strains of ‘high risk’ labels, false alarms, and endless follow-ups. It’s a recipe to make us all worried sick — and poorer.”
Ahn reported having no disclosures. Welch reported receiving royalties from three books including “Should I be tested for cancer?”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Getting Ahead of Gastrointestinal Cancer
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is AI Use Causing Endoscopists to Lose Their Skills?
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large observational study suggested.
“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”
Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”
The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
ADR Reduced After AI Use
To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.
These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.
The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.
The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.
Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.
The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.
The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).
The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).
The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.
Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.
In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.
In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.
“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”
“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”
Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”
‘Certainly a Signal’
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”
“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”
That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.
“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”
The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”
“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”
The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.