Objective: Assessment of disease extension and activity is crucial to guide treatment in Crohn’s disease. The objective of the current cross-sectional study was to determine the accuracy of MR for this assessment. Design: 50 patients with clinically active (n = 35) or inactive (n = 15) Crohn’s disease underwent ileocolonoscopy (reference standard) and MR. T2-weighted and precontrast and postcontrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequences were acquired. Endoscopic activity was evaluated by CDEIS (Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity); in addition endoscopic lesions were classified as absent, mild (inflammation without ulcers) or severe (presence of ulceration). Results: The comparison of intestinal segments with absent, mild and severe inflammation demonstrated a progressive and significant (p<0.001) increase in the following MR parameters: wall thickness, postcontrast wall signal intensity, relative contrast enhancement, presence of oedema, ulcers, pseudopolyps and lymph node enlargement. Independent predictors for CDEIS in a segment were wall thickness (p = 0.007), relative contrast enhancement (p = 0.01), presence of oedema (p = 0.02) and presence of ulcers at MR (p = 0.003). There was a significant correlation (r = 0.82, p<0.001) between the CDEIS of the segment and the MR index calculated according to the logistic regression analysis coefficients. The MR index had a high accuracy for the detection of disease activity (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.891, sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.89) and for the detection of ulcerative lesions (area under the ROC curve 0.978, sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.91) in the colon and terminal ileum. Conclusion: The accuracy of MR for detecting disease activity and assessing severity brings about the possibility of using MR as an alternative to endoscopy in the evaluation of ileocolonic Crohn’s disease.

Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1–2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2 ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3 ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1–2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6–9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4 ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10–19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9 ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11 ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the role of advanced endoscopic imaging for the detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia. Main recommendations 1 ESGE suggests the routine use of high definition white-light endoscopy systems for detecting colorectal neoplasia in average risk populations (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (narrow band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected Lynch syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2b ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (NBI) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected serrated polyposis syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends the routine use of 0.1 % methylene blue or 0.1 % – 0.5 % indigo carmine pancolonic chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis. In appropriately trained hands, in the situation of quiescent disease activity and adequate bowel preparation, nontargeted, four-quadrant biopsies can be abandoned (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy (NBI, FICE, i-SCAN) and conventional chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained and audited (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE suggests the use of conventional or virtual (NBI) magnified chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of invasive cancer and deep submucosal invasion in lesions such as those with a depressed component (0-IIc according to the Paris classification) or nongranular or mixed-type laterally spreading tumors (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Conclusion Advanced imaging techniques will need to be applied in specific patient groups in routine clinical practice and to be taught in endoscopic training programs.

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. Main statements 1 GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4 ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5 ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6 ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7 ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8 ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050. ^* Joint first authors Article published online: 08 July 2022 © 2022. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany