Faculty Bibliography

Endoscopy training traditionally relies on patient-based apprenticeship, which can limit exposure, feedback, and patient safety. Simulation offers a safe, reproducible environment for skill development, with mechanical, virtual reality, and hybrid systems providing increasing realism, procedural variety, and objective metrics. Evidence shows simulation enhances early skill acquisition, structured learning, and trainee confidence, though its superiority over patient-based training and predictive value for real-world outcomes remains under study. Barriers include cost, faculty expertise, and integration into curricula. Future work should focus on long-term skill retention, linking simulation performance to patient outcomes, and expanding accessible, cost-effective platforms.

BACKGROUND:Acute GI bleeding (AGIB) can be associated with significant mortality. Topical endoscopic hemostatic powders (TEHPs) have become established as one of the endoscopic treatment modalities for AGIBs. There is no dedicated consensus on the role of TEHPs in the GIB algorithm. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to develop expert-led consensus statements to provide guidance on the use of TEHPs in AGIBs. DESIGN/METHODS:A team of 15 experts in the field of acute AGIB from 8 countries was recruited to construct consensus statements on the use of TEHPs. A first meeting was held to define statements. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, they voted on statements by combining expert collective judgment and best available evidence in a 2-round voting process. Statements were rated on a 9-point interval scale (1 to 9). Four statistical methods were used to delineate statements that satisfied all criteria of appropriateness. For a statement to be considered appropriate, it had to meet all statistical definitions of appropriateness showing consensus agreement. RESULTS:Following round 2, 11 final statements were scored as appropriate, reaching overall consensus. Key recommendations include that TEHPs are effective in achieving hemostasis in malignancy-related GIBs, can be used as "salvage" therapy for nonvariceal GIBs and can be used as a bridge to definitive nonendoscopic therapy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We present a dedicated international consensus statement aimed at providing guidance to clinicians on best practice use of TEHPs in patients with AGIBs. There was consensus among the panel on the need for future trials to compare the use of different hemostatic powders in patients presenting with GIB.

BACKGROUND:An association between higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) at index screening colonoscopy and lower risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia (AN, defined as colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenoma (AA)) has been reported. However, the relationship between ADR at both index and surveillance colonoscopy and subsequent AN is unknown. We examined the association between ADR and withdrawal time (WT) at index and surveillance colonoscopy and risk of metachronous AN at surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS:We used GIQuIC, a repository of colonoscopies across the US. Each patient has a unique ID at a participating site. Endoscopist NPI are associated with each exam. We included patients with two colonoscopies at least 3 years apart (index and surveillance) between 2011 and 2022 and calculated the ADR and average WT for the endoscopist performing the index and surveillance colonoscopies respectively. We built a multivariable logistic regression model with metachronous AN as the outcome and ADR and WT as independent variables, controlling for patient age, sex and race. RESULTS:We included 768,274 patients and 3,425 endoscopists. Mean patient age was 61 years and 48% were male; 66% were White and 3% were Hispanic. Indication for index colonoscopy were screening (43.4%), surveillance (39.0%) and diagnostic (17.6%). ADR quartiles were ≤29.7%, >29.7%-37.2%, >37.2%-45.0% and >45%. WT quartiles were ≤7.1 min, >7.1 -8.2 min, >8.2-9.7min, >9.7min. Advanced neoplasia detection was lowest when low ADR endoscopists performed both index and surveillance exams (5.4%, Table 1) and high ADR index exams were followed by low ADR surveillance exams (4.0%). Compared to low ADR endoscopists for both index and surveillance exams, advanced was significantly higher when both exams performed by a high ADR endoscopist (AA 7.4%; OR for AN 1.10(1.05-1.16)) or low ADR index exams were followed by high ADR surveillance exams (AA 13.3%; OR for AN 1.448 (1.37-1.51)). Compared to short WT endoscopists for both exams (AA 7.2%; CRC 0.3%), advanced neoplasia detection was higher when both exams were performed by a long WT endoscopist or short WT index exams were followed by long WT surveillance exams (AA 7.0% p=.53 and 9.9%, P<0.001) but similar CRC detection of 0.2% and 0.2% (p 0.14). Other factors associated with finding of metachronous advanced neoplasia were older age (>=76 years vs 45-55 years OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.48, 1.82), male sex (Male vs female OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10-1.19), White race compared to non-white (OR1.10; 95% CI 1.06, 1.14), 7-10 years between exams compared to 3-5 years between exams (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11, 1.37), indication of surveillance vs. screening for the index exam (OR 1.1.7; 95% CI 1.13, 1.22), advanced adenoma or sessile serrated lesion finding on the index exam (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.97, 21.9 and OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.16, 1.30 respectively). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings show endoscopist ADR and WT for both index and surveillance colonoscopy are associated with risk of metachronous neoplasia, including CRC. Future studies on metachronous neoplasia should include both sets of quality indicators.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, with colonoscopy serving as the gold standard for both diagnosis and early intervention. While diminutive polyps (<5 mm) constitute most findings, only a small fraction exhibit advanced histological features. Optical diagnosis, which enables real-time classification of polyp histology through new technologies and the support of new strategies to leave low risk polyps in place (diagnose-and-leave) or resect without sending for formal pathology (resect-and-discard) have been studied as a cost-saving and effective strategy for diminutive polyps. There have been advances in imaging, such as narrow band imaging (NBI), but widespread adoption has yet to occur. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems, has emerged as a promising tool to standardize optical diagnosis, reduce interobserver variability, and improve adherence to surveillance guidelines. However, barriers to widespread implementation persist, including concerns about medicolegal liability, financial disincentives, and skepticism of CADx accuracy. The goal of article is to review the current evidence surrounding optical diagnosis, review diagnostic accuracy, and evaluate the challenges of widespread clinical adoption.

BACKGROUND:The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) assembled a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate the current state and future direction of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy leading to the development of consensus-based recommendations for responsible AI integration in clinical practice. METHODS:A total of 32 subject-matter experts and 12 industry partners, representing diverse practice settings and expertise, conducted subgroup literature reviews across five key areas (endoscopy, practice management clinical applications, training and education, IBD and liver disease, ethics and equity). Draft statements were developed and rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a modified Delphi process. A consensus was set at ≥70% combined agreement. Non-consensus items were revised and re-voted electronically. RESULTS:A total of 43 statements, 40 (93%) reached consensus in round 1 and the remaining 3 achieved consensus after round 2. Evidence supports computer-aided detection (CADe) improving adenoma detection rate and miss rate in controlled studies, with mixed "real-world" impact and insufficient long-term outcomes (e.g., interval colon cancer rate). Recommendations emphasize thorough validation and reduction of bias via heterogeneous datasets. Outside endoscopy, ambient AI scribes, NLP-enabled coding, workflow optimization, and prior authorization support show potential. Training recommendations endorse a structured AI curriculum while preserving independent procedural competence to avoid "deskilling". In IBD and hepatology, AI could help improve diagnostic accuracy, help predict risk for disease progression, and help guide therapy. Equity, governance, and reimbursement statements call for chain-of-custody data protections, specialty-society oversight, and payment models that reward quality and cost reduction. CONCLUSIONS:This consensus outlines how AI can augment rather than replace clinical expertise while promoting safety, transparency, interoperability, and equity. Priorities include pragmatic and prospective trials, multi-institutional data-sharing consortia, bias mitigation, and workforce training to enable trustworthy and clinically impactful AI adoption in GI, liver, and endoscopy care.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.