Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Despite the availability of multiple screening options, rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remain suboptimal. With recent approval of a blood test for CRC screening, there is an urgent need to understand screening preferences of populations with low screening rates. METHODS:Between October 2023 and June 2024, we conducted a survey on preferences for CRC screening modalities of stool test, blood test and colonoscopy among adults aged 45-75 at ambulatory primary care clinics across multiple community health centers and federally qualified healthcare centers across the city as well as in community settings regardless of prior screening. RESULTS:A total of 1,014 individuals completed the survey. Respondents were 12.8% Black/African American, 51.6% White, 23.4% Hispanic, 15.8% South Asian, and 4.2% Asian. Overall, the highest test preference was for screening colonoscopy (45.5%) followed by blood test (29.9%). Colonoscopy was preferred by individuals under age 70 (47.5%), while stool-based (20.2%) and blood-based (31.9%) tests were the most preferred among above 70 years (p = 0.0429. Whites (54.6%), Blacks (44.6%), and Hispanics (35.9%, p < 0.001) preferred colonoscopy, while Asians (37.2%) and South Asians (24.4%) favored blood tests. Factors associated with preference for a colonoscopy over other screening tests were younger age: respondents aged below 70 years were more likely to prefer colonoscopy, compared to respondents aged above 70 years (OR 1.72, 95% CI [1.20-2.47], p = 0.003); Nonsmoker compared to former/current smokers (OR 2.04, 95% CI [1.10-3.94], p = 0.028); Having undergone a prior colonoscopy (OR 6.83, 95% CI [4.52-10.6], p = < 0.001) or not having a prior stool test (OR 1.56, 95% CI [1.52-2.11], p = < 0.001). Factors associated with preference for a blood test over other screening tests were education level: respondents without any college experience were more likely to prefer blood test compared to respondents with college experience (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.07, p = 0.038); Nonsmoker compared to former/current smokers (OR 1.73, 95% CI [1.00-2.99], p = 0.048); Never undergone a prior colonoscopy (OR 1.76, 95% CI [1.23-2.51], p = 0.002). Factors associated with preference for a stool test over other screening tests were: age over 80 years compared to respondents aged below 80 (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.67-6.55, p < 0.001); respondents with college experience were more likely to prefer blood test compared to respondents without college experience (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.02-2.66, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Colonoscopy was the preferred test option, followed by blood test. Preferences for screening test varied by age, race, ethnicity, education and prior screening. The study underscores importance of patient preference in deciding which tests to offer based on the patient characteristics. Nonsmokers, those without any college education and those without prior screening preferred blood test for screening.

BACKGROUND:Chronic intestinal inflammation is a well-established driver of colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the role of metabolic factors such as obesity remains poorly understood. We evaluated whether chronic obesity, measured using five-year longitudinal body mass index (BMI), is independently associated with colorectal dysplasia in patients with IBD. METHODS:using all outpatient measurements over a five-year period prior to the index colonoscopy. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between obesity and dysplasia, adjusting for established dysplasia risk factors and surveillance-related variables. RESULTS:A total of 312 patients were included (156 dysplasia cases and 156 matched controls). Dysplasia cases had significantly longer IBD duration compared with controls (median 12.1 vs. 8.0 years, p < 0.01) and were more likely to have a history of prior colorectal dysplasia (16.0% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.01). In multivariable analysis, obesity was independently associated with colorectal dysplasia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.23, 95% CI 1.08-4.57). Longer disease duration (aOR 1.05 per year, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) and prior dysplasia (aOR 4.88, 95% CI 1.69-14.06) were also independently associated with dysplasia. In a secondary model adjusting for additional surveillance-related and structural colonic factors, obesity remained significantly associated with dysplasia (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.24). CONCLUSIONS:Obesity is independently associated with colorectal dysplasia in patients with IBD, suggesting that metabolic factors contribute to neoplastic risk beyond traditional inflammation-driven pathways. Incorporation of metabolic risk into dysplasia risk stratification may improve CRC prevention strategies in IBD.

The liver's anatomic position and immune specialization make it both a major target and a major filter for systemically delivered therapeutics. Because portal venous inflow exposes the liver early to gut-derived molecules and exogenous compounds, many intravenously administered agents, including gene-based medicines and their viral and non-viral delivery systems, preferentially enter and accumulate in hepatic tissue. This review synthesizes how core liver physiology and immunobiology influence the performance, safety, and clinical translation of genomic medicines in hepatology, and outlines near-term practice and research shifts likely to define a genomics-driven future in liver disease care. We review the hepatic microarchitecture relevant to therapeutic trafficking, including sinusoidal transit, the space of Disse, hepatocyte uptake, and hepatobiliary elimination, and highlight the gatekeeping roles of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells and Kupffer cells in clearing particulate material and shaping inflammatory signaling. We then discuss how these same features create both opportunities, such as efficient hepatic targeting, and constraints, including innate immune activation, vector clearance, and variable intrahepatic distribution, for DNA- and RNA-based platforms. Finally, we propose five actionable developments poised to move genomics from a niche tool to a routine component of hepatology practice: earlier genomic testing in unexplained liver disease, multidisciplinary hepatology genome rounds, a centralized liver-specific gene resource, genetics-aware clinical trial design, and expansion of genetic therapies. Integrating liver biology with genomic medicine is essential to improve diagnostic yield, personalize therapy, and accelerate translation of gene-based treatments while mitigating immunologic and delivery-related barriers.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) accounts for up to 20% of acute pancreatitis cases despite thorough initial evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are commonly used as second-line imaging modalities when IAP etiologies are unclear, yet their comparative diagnostic performance remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic yield of EUS versus MRCP in identifying etiologies of IAP. METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar (January 2000-April 2025) identified English-language studies comparing EUS and MRCP diagnostic performance in IAP. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random-effects model, with subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses done per PRISMA 2020. Subgroup analyses assessed diagnostic yield by etiology-biliary disease (cholelithiasis, choledocholithiasis, microlithiasis, and sludge), pancreatic divisum, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), and malignancy (pancreatic adenocarcinoma and periampullary cancer). RESULTS: = 0.0%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:EUS surpasses MRCP in diagnosing IAP biliary etiologies and has an overall higher diagnostic yield. Prior studies suggest that EUS may be oversensitive in diagnosing CP, which may be consistent with the increased rate of diagnosis by EUS in our data. There was some signal that EUS had a higher diagnostic yield for cancer, which may highlight a potential role in identifying occult malignancy in IAP evaluation. In practice, choosing EUS vs. MRCP depends on resource availability, but a patient-centered approach that integrates modality strengths with clinical profiles can improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Poor documentation quality can significantly affect healthcare operations, but the feedback process for clinicians to improve clinical notes is time-consuming and often insufficient. Large language models (LLMs) such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) have the potential to streamline this process. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether an LLM can generate feedback to improve the medical contingency and discharge planning (MCDP) component of clinical documentation that is non-inferior to feedback by physicians. METHODS:A cross-sectional study of GPT-4 feedback and physician feedback on inpatient progress notes was conducted. A random sample of 64 inpatient progress notes identified by the validated AI Audit Tool as having a low likelihood of containing MCDP was included from adult general medicine patients hospitalized at New York University Langone Health (NYULH) in December 2023. Both GPT-4 model and attending physicians generated feedback on these inpatient progress notes. A/B testing was then conducted on the measures of understandability, usefulness, acceptability, and impartiality. Evaluations employed 5-point Likert scales that were converted to 10-point bidirectional interval scales for interpretability, ranging from -10 (human suggestions significantly better) to +10 (GPT-4 suggestions significantly better), with a non-inferiority threshold set to -1 for the primary endpoint. RESULTS:64 inpatient progress notes were included, representing 55% female patients with a median age of 73. GPT-4 feedback was non-inferior to physician feedback in all measures: understandability (mean 1.27, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.8, P < 0.001), usefulness (mean 2.09, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.91, P < 0.001), acceptability (mean 2.07, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.81, P < 0.001), and impartiality (mean -0.20, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.12, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:This study shows that an LLM can be leveraged to generate note quality feedback that is non-inferior to expert clinician feedback.

BACKGROUND:Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients face increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk due to chronic immunosuppression and comorbidities such as primary sclerosing cholangitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and cystic fibrosis. Despite this elevated risk, CRC screening and treatment guidelines specific to transplant recipients remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prevalence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of CRC in SOT recipients. METHODS:A comprehensive search across major databases identified studies reporting CRC incidence and outcomes in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients. Study quality was assessed using validated risk-of-bias tools. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model; heterogeneity and organ-specific subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS:The pooled incidence of CRC in SOT recipients was 0.95% (95% CI: 0.35%-1.55%). Incidence was highest in heart transplant recipients (1.27%), followed by kidney (1.12%), lung (0.56%), and liver (0.53%) recipients. The mean time to CRC diagnosis was 8.8 years (95% CI: 5.94-11.82). A total of 41.13% of patients presented with stage III/IV or metastatic disease, and right-sided tumors predominated (46.34%). Surgical resection was performed in 62.74% of patients. The mortality rate among CRC patients post-transplant was 61.13% (95% CI: 39.55%-82.7%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CRC in SOT recipients is associated with increased incidence, delayed diagnosis, and poor prognosis. The predominance of right-sided tumors and late-stage presentation underscore the need for tailored screening and surveillance protocols. Future clinical guidelines should incorporate organ-specific risk stratification and long-term monitoring to optimize outcomes in this high-risk population.

Hemospray (TC-325), a powder-based hemostatic spray, is increasingly used for upper gastrointestinal bleeding but can rarely cause endoscope retention. A 74-year-old woman with chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation on warfarin, mechanical heart valves, and prior gastric ulcers presented with melena and large-volume hematemesis causing hemodynamic instability. Laboratory findings revealed hemoglobin 7.3 g/dL and international normalized ratio 7. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed multiple bleeding arteriovenous malformations in the cardia and fundus, treated with a synthetic self-assembling peptide gel and subsequently with hemospray applied in retroflexion. Withdrawal of the endoscope was initially unsuccessful due to powder adhesion, but aggressive water irrigation enabled removal after 90 minutes. The patient stabilized with transfusions and octreotide, with no recurrent bleeding. This case underscores the risk of endoscope retention when Hemospray is applied retroflexed and suggests aggressive irrigation as a potential remedy. Further studies are needed to optimize Hemospray dosing and evaluate self-assembling peptide-powder interactions.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, emphasizing the need for effective later-line therapies. Fruquintinib, a selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)1-3 inhibitor, has emerged as a promising option for refractory mCRC. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates its efficacy and safety, both as monotherapy and in combination with programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Online Vendor of International Databases (OVID), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (2010-2025). Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or real-world data on fruquintinib in mCRC after at least two prior therapies. Real-world evidence was included to complement RCT findings, as it captures broader populations, treatment patterns, and outcomes not fully reflected in controlled trial settings. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and event rates were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:. 4.0%, P=0.04). In cross-study comparisons, monotherapy appeared to yield numerically longer PFS, although this was not based on head-to-head trials. AEs occurred in 86.7%, with grade ≥3 in 30.9%, most often hypertension (8.1%) and hand-foot skin reaction (5.8%). High heterogeneity was observed for several outcomes including AEs and DCR. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Fruquintinib significantly improves PFS and disease control in refractory mCRC with manageable toxicity. Limitations include heterogeneity across studies, with most conducted in predominantly Chinese cohorts. Further studies should explore optimal combination strategies and biomarker-based selection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with 44% of deaths occurring in individuals aged 75 years and older. With 78 million adults over 65 years projected by 2035, optimizing CRC screening and surveillance is crucial. This review examines guidelines, risks, and personalized approaches. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:CRC screening reduces incidence by 17-33% and mortality by 11-53%. Colonoscopy lowers mortality by 61% but has a 6.8% complication rate in those aged 75 years and older. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is 8.7 per 1,000 for polypectomy, and perforation occurs in 0.6 per 1,000. Frailty indices assess suitability, but surveillance guidelines lack clear discontinuation criteria. Screening should balance risk, complications, and health status. It may be cost-effective up to age 86 years in healthy individuals, but more research is needed to refine surveillance strategies and reduce overtreatment in older adults.