Endoscopy

PHOENIX — Gastroenterologists want more training in how to safely deliver moderate sedation during endoscopic procedures, and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.

This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.

These numbers are not impressive, said Early.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”

The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.

 

Is Existing Training Enough?

Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.

“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.

Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.

Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.

While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.

Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.

 

Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists

Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.

The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.

Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.

When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.

It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.

There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.

Early reported having no conflicts.

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

PHOENIX — Gastroenterologists want more training in how to safely deliver moderate sedation during endoscopic procedures, and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.

This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.

These numbers are not impressive, said Early.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”

The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.

 

Is Existing Training Enough?

Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.

“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.

Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.

Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.

While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.

Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.

 

Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists

Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.

The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.

Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.

When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.

It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.

There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.

Early reported having no conflicts.

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

PHOENIX — Gastroenterologists want more training in how to safely deliver moderate sedation during endoscopic procedures, and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.

This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.

These numbers are not impressive, said Early.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”

The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.

 

Is Existing Training Enough?

Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.

“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.

Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.

Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.

While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.

Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.

 

Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists

Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.

The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.

Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.

When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.

It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.

There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.

Early reported having no conflicts.

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

US endoscopists frequently stray from established best practices when removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm, with fewer than 60% of procedures using the recommended cold snare technique, 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.

US endoscopists frequently stray from established best practices when removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm, with fewer than 60% of procedures using the recommended cold snare technique, 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.

US endoscopists frequently stray from established best practices when removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm, with fewer than 60% of procedures using the recommended cold snare technique, 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.

Dear colleagues,

Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two timely essays that explore how AI is reshaping clinical care—while also emphasizing the need for caution, thoughtful integration, and ongoing oversight.

Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.

Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.

We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy

BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD

As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”

Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.

Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.

For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.

Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established. 

Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.¹ Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.²

To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).³

The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.

Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.

Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.⁵ In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.

Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.

By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.

Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.

Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.

References

1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.

2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.

3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.

4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.

5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.

AI in General GI and Endoscopy

BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD

The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.

What are the upsides? 

AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).¹ AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.²

Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.³

What are the downsides? 

For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.

Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness⁴, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.

 

Black Swans

As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.

What is the role of the GI societies? 

Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.⁵

Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.

Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.

References

1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.

2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.

3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.

4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.

5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.

Dear colleagues,

Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two timely essays that explore how AI is reshaping clinical care—while also emphasizing the need for caution, thoughtful integration, and ongoing oversight.

Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.

Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.

We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy

BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD

As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”

Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.

Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.

For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.

Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established. 

Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.¹ Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.²

To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).³

The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.

Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.

Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.⁵ In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.

Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.

By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.

Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.

Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.

References

1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.

2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.

3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.

4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.

5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.

AI in General GI and Endoscopy

BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD

The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.

What are the upsides? 

AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).¹ AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.²

Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.³

What are the downsides? 

For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.

Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness⁴, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.

 

Black Swans

As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.

What is the role of the GI societies? 

Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.⁵

Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.

Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.

References

1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.

2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.

3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.

4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.

5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.

Dear colleagues,

Since our last Perspectives feature on artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology and hepatology, the field has experienced remarkable growth in both innovation and clinical adoption. AI tools that were once conceptual are now entering everyday practice, with many more on the horizon poised to transform how we diagnose, treat, and manage patients. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two timely essays that explore how AI is reshaping clinical care—while also emphasizing the need for caution, thoughtful integration, and ongoing oversight.

Dr. Yuvaraj Singh, Dr. Alessandro Colletta, and Dr. Neil Marya discuss how purpose-built AI models can reduce diagnostic uncertainty in advanced endoscopy. From cholangioscopy systems that outperform standard ERCP sampling in distinguishing malignant biliary strictures to EUS-based platforms that differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer, they envision a near-term future in which machine intelligence enhances accuracy, accelerates decision-making, and refines interpretation—without replacing the clinician’s expertise.

Complementing this, Dr. Dennis Shung takes a broader view across the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic. He highlights the promise of AI for polyp detection, digital biopsy, and automated reporting, while underscoring the importance of human oversight, workflow integration, and safeguards against misinformation. Dr. Shung also emphasizes the pivotal role professional societies can play in establishing clear standards, ethical boundaries, and trusted frameworks for AI deployment in GI practice.

We hope these perspectives spark practical conversations about when—and how—to integrate AI in your own practice. As always, we welcome your feedback and real-world experience. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

AI Models in Advanced Endoscopy

BY YUVARAJ SINGH, MD; ALESSANDRO COLLETTA, MD; NEIL MARYA, MD

As the adage goes, “if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, because cancer may be the answer.”

Establishing an accurate diagnosis is the essential first step toward curing or palliating malignancy. From detecting an early neoplastic lesion, to distinguishing between malignant and benign pathology, or to determining when and where to obtain tissue, endoscopists are frequently faced with the challenge of transforming diagnostic suspicion into certainty.

Artificial intelligence (AI), designed to replicate human cognition such as pattern recognition and decision-making, has emerged as a technology to assist gastroenterologists in addressing a variety of different tasks during endoscopy. AI research in gastrointestinal endoscopy has initially focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps. More recently, however, there has been increased emphasis on developing AI to assist advanced endoscopists.

For instance, in biliary endoscopy, AI is being explored to improve the notoriously challenging diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, where conventional tissue sampling often falls short of providing a definitive diagnosis. Similarly, in the pancreas, AI models are showing potential to differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), a distinction with profound therapeutic implications. Even pancreatic cysts are beginning to benefit from AI models that refine risk stratification and guide management. Together, these advances underscore how AI is not merely an adjunct but a potentially massive catalyst for reimagining the diagnostic role of advanced endoscopists.

Classifying biliary strictures (MBS) accurately remains a challenge. Standard ERCP-based sampling techniques (forceps biopsy and brush cytology) are suboptimal diagnostic tools with false negative rates for detecting MBS of less than 50%. The diagnostic uncertainty related to biliary stricture classification carries significant consequences for patients. For example, patients with biliary cancer without positive cytology have treatments delayed until a malignant diagnosis is established. 

Ancillary technologies to enhance ERCP-based tissue acquisition are still weighed down by low sensitivity and accuracy; even with ancillary use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), diagnostic yield remains limited. EUS-FNA can help with distal biliary strictures, but this technique risks needle-tract seeding in cases of perihilar disease. Cholangioscopy allows for direct visualization and targeted sampling; however, cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsies are burdened by low sensitivities.¹ Additionally, physician interpretation of visual findings during cholangioscopy often suffers from poor interobserver agreement and poor accuracy.²

To improve the classification of biliary strictures, several groups have studied the application of AI for cholangioscopy footage of biliary pathology. In our lab, we trained an AI incorporating over 2.3 million cholangioscopy still images and nearly 20,000 expert-annotated frames to enhance its development. The AI closely mirrored expert labeling of cholangioscopy images of malignant pathology and, when tested on full cholangioscopy videos of indeterminate biliary strictures, the AI achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 91%—outperforming both brush cytology (63%) and forceps biopsy (61%).³

The results from this initial study were later validated across multiple centers. AI-assisted cholangioscopy could thus offer a reproducible, real-world solution to one of the most persistent diagnostic dilemmas advanced endoscopists face—helping clinicians act earlier and with greater confidence when evaluating indeterminate strictures.

Moving from the biliary tree to the pancreas, autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a benign fibro-inflammatory disease that often frustrates advanced endoscopists as it closely mimics the appearance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The stakes are high: despite modern diagnostic techniques, including advanced imaging, some patients with pancreatic resections for “suspected PDAC” are still found to have AIP on final pathology. Conventional tools to distinguish AIP from PDAC have gaps: serum IgG4 and EUS-guided biopsies are both specific but insensitive.

Using EUS videos and images of various pancreas pathologies at Mayo Clinic, we developed an AI to tackle this dilemma. After intensive training, the EUS AI achieved a greater accuracy for distinguishing AIP from PDAC than a group of expert Mayo clinic endosonographers.⁵ In practice, an EUS-AI can identify AIP patterns in real-time, guiding clinicians toward steroid trials or biopsies and reducing the need for unnecessary surgeries.

Looking ahead, there are multiple opportunities for integration of AI into advanced endoscopy practices. Ongoing research suggests that AI could soon assist with identification of pancreas cysts most at risk for malignant transformation, classification of high risk Barrett’s esophagus, and even help with rapid on-site assessment of cytologic specimens obtained during EUS. Beyond diagnosis, AI could likely play an important role in guiding therapeutic interventions. For example, an ERCP AI in the future may be able to provide cannulation assistance or an AI assistant could help endosonographers during deployments of lumen apposing metal stents.

By enhancing image interpretation and procedural consistency, AI has the potential to uphold the fundamental principle of primum non nocere, enabling us to intervene with precision while minimizing harm. AI can also bridge grey zones in clinical practice and narrow diagnostic uncertainty in real time. Importantly, these systems can help clinicians achieve expertise in a fraction of the time it traditionally takes to acquire comparable human proficiency, while offering wider availability across practice settings and reducing interobserver variability that has long challenged endoscopic interpretation.

Currently, adoption is limited by high bias risk, lack of external validation, and interpretability Still, the trajectory of AI suggests a future where these computer technologies will not only support but also elevate human expertise, reshaping the standards of care of diseases managed by advanced endoscopists.

Dr. Singh, Dr. Colletta, and Dr. Marya are based at the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Marya is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and has no other disclosures. Dr. Singh and Dr. Colletta have no disclosures.

References

1. Navaneethan U, et al. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.

2. Stassen PMC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.027.

3. Marya NB, et al. Identification of patients with malignant biliary strictures using a cholangioscopy-based deep learning artificial intelligence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.08.021.

4. Marya NB, et al. Multicenter validation of a cholangioscopy artificial intelligence system for the evaluation of biliary tract disease. Endoscopy. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1055/a-2650-0789.

5. Marya NB, et al. Utilisation of artificial intelligence for the development of an EUS-convolutional neural network model trained to enhance the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis. Gut. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322821.

AI in General GI and Endoscopy

BY DENNIS L. SHUNG, MD, MHS, PHD

The practice of gastroenterology is changing, but much of it will be rooted in the same – careful, focused attention on endoscopic procedures, and compassionate, attentive care in clinic. Artificial intelligence (AI), like the Industrial Revolution before, is going to transform our practice. This comes with upsides and downsides, and highlights the need for strong leadership from our societies to safeguard the technology for practitioners and patients.

What are the upsides? 

AI has the potential to serve as a second set of eyes in detecting colon polyps, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR).¹ AI can be applied to all areas of the gastrointestinal tract, providing digital biopsies, guiding resection, and ensuring quality, which are all now possible with powerful new endoscopy foundation models, such as GastroNet-5M.²

Additionally. the advent of automating the collection of data into reports may herald the end of our days as data entry clerks. Generative AI also has the potential to give us all the best information at our fingertips, suggesting guideline-based care, providing the most up to date evidence, and guiding the differential diagnosis. The potential for patient-facing AI systems could lead to better health literacy, more meaningful engagement, and improved patient satisfaction.³

What are the downsides? 

For endoscopy, AI cannot make up for poor technique to ensure adequate mucosal exposure by the endoscopist, and an increase in AI-supported ADR does not yet convincingly translate into concrete gains in colorectal cancer-related mortality. For the foreseeable future, AI cannot make a connection with the patient in front of us, which is critical in diagnosing and treating patients.

Currently, AI appears to worsen loneliness⁴, and does not necessarily deepen the bonds or provide the positive touch that can heal, and which for many of us, was the reason we became physicians. Finally, as information proliferates, the information risk to patients and providers is growing – in the future, trusted sources to monitor, curate, and guide AI will be ever more important.

 

Black Swans

As AI begins to mature, there are risks that lurk beneath the surface. When regulatory bodies begin to look at AI-assisted diagnostics or therapeutics as the new standard of care, reimbursement models may adjust, and providers may be left behind. The rapid proliferation and haphazard adoption of AI could lead to overdependence and deskilling or result in weird and as yet unknown errors that are difficult to troubleshoot.

What is the role of the GI societies? 

Specialty societies like AGA are taking leadership roles in determining the bounds of where AIs may tread, not just in providing information to their membership but also in digesting evidence and synthesizing recommendations. Societies must balance the real promise of AI in endoscopy with the practice realities for members, and provide living guidelines that reflect the consensus of members regarding scope of practice with the ability to update as new data become available.⁵

Societies also have a role as advocates for safety, taking ownership of high-quality content to prevent misinformation. AGA recently announced the development of a chat interface that will be focused on providing its members the highest quality information, and serve as a portal to identify and respond to its members’ information needs. By staying united rather than fragmenting, societies can maintain bounds to protect its members and their patients and advance areas where there is clinical need, together.

Dr. Shung is senior associate consultant, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and director of clinical generative artificial intelligence and informatics, Department of Medicine, at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.

References

1. Soleymanjahi S, et al. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Dec. doi:10.7326/annals-24-00981.

2. Jong MR, et al. GastroNet-5M: A Multicenter Dataset for Developing Foundation Models in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.07.030.

3. Soroush A, et al. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Impact on Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.03.038.

4. Mengying Fang C, et al. How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study. arXiv e-prints. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473.

5. Sultan S, et al. AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2025 Apr. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.002.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.