Objective The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years. Design Data on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change. Results We retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively. Conclusion CRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Objective: Accurate endoscopic differentiation would enable to resect and discard small and diminutive colonic lesions, thereby increasing cost-efficiency. Current classification systems based on narrow band imaging (NBI), however, do not include neoplastic sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps). We aimed to develop and validate a new classification system for endoscopic differentiation of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps <10 mm. Design: We developed the Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classification, combining the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic classification and criteria for differentiation of SSA/Ps in a stepwise approach. Ten consultant gastroenterologists predicted polyp histology, including levels of confidence, based on the endoscopic aspect of 45 polyps, before and after participation in training in the WASP classification. After 6 months, the same endoscopists predicted polyp histology of a new set of 50 polyps, with a ratio of lesions comparable to daily practice. Results: The accuracy of optical diagnosis was 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.71) at baseline, which improved to 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) after training. For polyps diagnosed with high confidence the accuracy was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), which improved to 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, p<0.01). The accuracy of optical diagnosis after 6 months was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.80), increasing to 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) considering high confidence diagnosis. The combined negative predictive value with high confidence of diminutive neoplastic lesions (adenomas and SSA/Ps together) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96). Conclusions: We developed and validated the first integrative classification method for endoscopic differentiation of small and diminutive adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps. In a still image evaluation setting, introduction of the WASP classification significantly improved the accuracy of optical diagnosis overall as well as SSA/P in particular, which proved to be sustainable after 6 months.

Main Recommendations: At a population level, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) suggest endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (and precancerous conditions) in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate [ASR] > 20 per 100 000 person-years) every 2 to 3 years or, if cost–effectiveness has been proven, in intermediate risk regions (ASR 10–20 per 100 000 person-years) every 5 years, but not in low-risk regions (ASR < 10).ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that irrespective of country of origin, individual gastric risk assessment and stratification of precancerous conditions is recommended for first-time gastroscopy. ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80 should be discontinued or not started, and that patients’ comorbidities should be considered when treatment of superficial lesions is planned.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that a high quality endoscopy including the use of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, is performed for screening, diagnosis, and staging of precancerous conditions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) and lesions (dysplasia or cancer), as well as after endoscopic therapy. VCE should be used to guide the sampling site for biopsies in the case of suspected neoplastic lesions as well as to guide biopsies for diagnosis and staging of gastric precancerous conditions, with random biopsies to be taken in the absence of endoscopically suspected changes. When there is a suspected early gastric neoplastic lesion, it should be properly described (location, size, Paris classification, vascular and mucosal pattern), photodocumented, and two targeted biopsies taken.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP do not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection unless there are signs of deep submucosal invasion or if the lesion is not considered suitable for endoscopic resection.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for differentiated gastric lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low grade and high grade) or as intramucosal carcinoma (of any size if not ulcerated or ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR being an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions of size ≤ 10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that a decision about ESD can be considered for malignant lesions clinically staged as having minimal submucosal invasion if differentiated and ≤ 30 mm; or for malignant lesions clinically staged as intramucosal, undifferentiated and ≤ 20 mm; and in both cases with no ulcerative findings.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommends patient management based on the following histological risk after endoscopic resection: Curative/very low-risk resection (lymph node metastasis [LNM] risk < 0.5 %–1 %): en bloc R0 resection; dysplastic/pT1a, differentiated lesion, no lymphovascular invasion, independent of size if no ulceration and ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated. No further staging procedure or treatment is recommended.Curative/low-risk resection (LNM risk < 3 %): en bloc R0 resection; lesion with no lymphovascular invasion and: a) pT1b, invasion ≤ 500 µm, differentiated, size ≤ 30 mm; or b) pT1a, undifferentiated, size ≤ 20 mm and no ulceration. Staging should be completed, and further treatment is generally not necessary, but a multidisciplinary discussion is required. Local-risk resection (very low risk of LNM but increased risk of local persistence/recurrence): Piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting curative/very low-risk criteria (or meeting low-risk criteria provided that there is no submucosal invasive tumor at the resection margin in the case of piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin for pT1b lesions [invasion ≤ 500 µm; well-differentiated; size ≤ 30 mm, and VM0]). Endoscopic surveillance/re-treatment is recommended rather than other additional treatment. High-risk resection (noncurative): Any lesion with any of the following: (a) a positive vertical margin (if carcinoma) or lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion (> 500 µm from the muscularis mucosae); (b) poorly differentiated lesions if ulceration or size > 20 mm; (c) pT1b differentiated lesions with submucosal invasion ≤ 500 µm with size > 30 mm; or (d) intramucosal ulcerative lesion with size > 30 mm. Complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments (surgery) in multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest the use of validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e. g. Kimura–Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e. g. endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia [EGGIM]) to endoscopically stage precancerous conditions and stratify the risk for gastric cancer.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (2 biopsies from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, guided by VCE) in two separate, clearly labeled vials. Additional biopsy from the incisura is optional.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3 + or EGGIM 5 +) or advanced histological stages of atrophic gastritis (severe atrophic changes or intestinal metaplasia, or changes in both antrum and corpus, operative link on gastritis assessment/operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia [OLGA/OLGIM] III/IV) should be followed up with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of the individual’s country of origin.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that no surveillance is proposed for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs...

Main Recommendations: MR1 ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:– a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy– photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions– use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification– collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2 ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3 ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient’s life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4 ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5 ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6 ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett’s cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8 ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9 ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 a ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. b ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. c ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. d ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. e ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11 After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:– For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.– For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.