Fung Joon Foo

Background and aims: Colonoscopy remains as an invaluable diagnostic and therapeutic tool used for the screening and evaluation of colonic pathologies. Periodic endoscopic screening allowing for early detection and removal of pre-malignant lesions, resulting in significant overall decreased incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer. Despite its added costs, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly utilized in the field of endoscopy, boasting benefits of improving adenoma detection rates while reducing endoscopists’ mental fatigue intra-procedurally. As such, further evaluation of the financial impact of such AI-usage in screening colonoscopies was performed to assess if routine use of AI-guidance in screening colonoscopies was justifiable. Methods: This study conducted a cost effectiveness analysis of the GI Genius™ CADx Intelligent Endoscopy Module (US-DG-2000309, 2021 Medtronic) system in our local Singaporean tertiary public healthcare institution. A decision tree model was used to calculate Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), comparing cancer-related costs for patients who underwent conventional colonoscopy versus colonoscopy with AI guidance. Results: With a calculated ICER value of 0.72, our study suggests that AI-assisted colonoscopy was indeed cost effective. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) values derived for each subgroup of patients further demonstrated overall improved quality of life reported by patients who underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy, as compared to conventional colonoscopy. Conclusion: Our study supports the incorporation of AI guidance into routine colonoscopic evaluation in view of increased cost effectiveness and improved overall quality of life achieved. However, further studies and analysis must be undertaken before reliably determining the cost-effectiveness of AI on regional or international scales.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences.Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting.Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery.Conclusion: Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is becoming the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, surgery is deferred for months after completion, which may lead to fibrosis and increased surgical difficulty. The aim of this study was to assess whether TNT (TNT-RAPIDO) is associated with increased difficulty of total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) and upfront surgery.Methods: Twelve laparoscopic videos of low anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer were prospectively collected from January 2020 to October 2021, with 4 videos in each arm. Seven colorectal surgeons assessed the videos independently, graded the difficulty of TME using a visual analog scale and attempted to identify which category the videos belonged to.Results: The median age was 67 years, and 10 patients were male. The median interval to surgery from radiotherapy was 13 weeks in the LCRT group and 24 weeks in the TNT-RAPIDO group. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale for difficulty in TME between the 3 groups (LCRT, 3.2; TNT-RAPIDO, 4.6; upfront, 4.1; P=0.12). A subgroup analysis showed similar difficulty between groups (LCRT 3.2 vs. TNT-RAPIDO 4.6, P=0.05; TNT-RAPIDO 4.6 vs. upfront 4.1, P=0.54). During video assessments, surgeons correctly identified the prior treatment modality in 42% of the cases. TNT-RAPIDO videos had the highest recognition rate (71%), significantly outperforming both LCRT (29%) and upfront surgery (25%, P=0.01).Conclusion: TNT does not appear to increase the surgical difficulty of TME.

Background/Aims: Sigmoidoscopy is performed in most medical centers to evaluate the distal colons of young adults presenting with hematochezia who are at risk of developing proximal lesions. Colonoscopies offer more complete evaluations but are associated with a higher incidence of complications and possible low yield. Methods: An analysis was conducted on colonoscopies performed in our center on patients 40 years of age or younger. The study population was sub-divided into 2 age groups for analysis: <30 years of age and 30-39 years of age. Results: We recruited 453 patients for the study: Patients were 115 and 338 individuals that were <30 and 30-39 years of age, respectively. Hemorrhoids was identified as the cause of bleeding in the majority of cases. The overall incidence of polyps was 6.5%; this was significantly higher in the 30-39 age group (7.4% vs. 1.7%, p=0.026). There were two cases of advanced/malignant polyps. While the majority of the polyps were in the distal colon, 28% of the polyps in the older age group were found in the proximal colon. There was one case of colonic perforation. Conclusions: Colonic polyps are more prevalent in patients aged 30-39. Colonoscopies should be considered for patients over the age of 30 with rectal bleeding.