Background: Insulin resistance (IR) is assessed using surrogate markers such as the triglyceride–glucose (TyG) index, the triglyceride-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C) ratio, and the metabolic score for IR (METS-IR). Limited studies investigated their association with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence, and no research has been conducted on their association with the METS-IR. Method: This study used claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service, analyzing a cohort of 314,141 Koreans aged over 40 who participated in the National Health Screening Program from 2009 to 2010. The follow-up period was extended until 31 December 2019. Participants were divided into four groups based on quartiles (Q1–Q4) of the markers. Results: All surrogate markers of IR had sequentially statistically lower disease-free probabilities from Q1 to Q4. The Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated statistically significant positive associations between CRC incidence and Q3 and Q4 of the TyG index, as well as Q3 and Q4 of the TG/HDL-C ratio and Q4 of the METS-IR. The constrained cubic spline method revealed a nonlinear, positive dose–response relationship between the TyG index and the METS-IR in relation to CRC incidence. Conclusions: In conclusion, the TyG index, TG/HDL-C ratio, and METS-IR were positively correlated with CRC incidence in Koreans.

Background and Aims: Multiple non-invasive tests (NITs) for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are available, but, due to the limitations of single NITs, the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines suggest a two-step strategy, combining the Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) score with the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test to improve diagnostic accuracy and minimize unnecessary liver biopsies. However, few real-world studies have used such a sequential approach. We here evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the ELF test in patients with recently established metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and assessed the clinical utility of applying a two-step strategy, including the ELF test following the FIB-4 score assessment, in patients with MASLD. Methods: We enrolled 153 patients diagnosed with MASLD who underwent liver biopsy at the Dong-A University Hospital between June 2018 and August 2023. The degree of fibrosis was determined based on liver biopsy results. Various NITs were used, including the Aminotransferase-to-Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), FIB-4 score, NAFLD Fibrosis score (NFS) and ELF test. The diagnostic efficacy of these NITs was evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Additionally, the performance of each test was further examined both when applied individually and in a two-step approach, where FIB-4 was used followed by ELF testing. Key metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were used for this analysis. Results: Overall, 153 patients with MASLD (mean age: 46.62 years; 52.3% men; 28.1% with type 2 diabetes) were included. The performance of the NITs in identifying advanced fibrosis was as follows: the AUROC of the APRI, FIB-4, NFS, and ELF tests were 0.803 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.713–0.863), 0.769 (95% CI, 0.694–0.833), 0.699 (95% CI, 0.528–0.796), and 0.829 (95% CI, 0.760–0.885), respectively. The combination of the FIB-4 score ≥ 1.30 and the ELF score ≥ 9.8 showed 67.86% sensitivity, 90.40% specificity, a PPV of 75.18%, an NPV of 86.78%, an accuracy of 83.64%, and an AUROC of 0.791 for predicting the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis. This approach excluded 28 patients (71.8%) from unnecessary liver biopsies. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that ELF testing maintained diagnostic accuracy in assessing liver fibrosis in patients with MASLD in real-world practice. This test was used as a second step in the evaluation, reducing clinically unnecessary invasive liver biopsies and referrals to tertiary institutions. This approach allows assessment of MASLD severity in primary care settings without requiring additional equipment.

Aim: The shift in terminology from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) highlights its association with metabolic dysfunction. MASLD is defined by hepatic steatosis and at least one cardiometabolic risk factor (CMRF), which contribute to chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study examines the relationship between MASLD and CKD, the independent impact of CMRFs on CKD risk, and the cumulative effect of multiple CMRFs on CKD development.Methods: The present retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS), analyzing 211,992 individuals aged ≥ 40 years who underwent health screenings between 2009 and 2010. The average observation period was 9.1 years. Participants were classified into groups: no steatotic liver disease (SLD) without CMRF, no SLD with CMRF, MASLD, and metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease with increased alcohol intake (MetALD).Results: Compared to the no SLD without CMRF group, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for CKD were 1.27 (95% CI: 1.18–1.37) for no SLD with CMRF, 1.70 (95% CI: 1.58–1.83) for MASLD, and 1.47 (95% CI: 1.33–1.63) for MetALD. CKD risk increased with the number of CMRFs, with adjusted HRs increasing from 1.12 (one CMRF) to 1.97 (four CMRFs).Conclusions: MASLD is independently associated with increased CKD risk. Each CMRF independently contributes to CKD development, and the cumulative effect of multiple CMRFs further amplifies this. This suggests that MASLD is an effective predictor of CKD risk. Given the rising burden of MASLD and its complications, early identification and management of risk factors are crucial for reducing CKD incidence.

(1) Background: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of predicting the histology of diminutive colonic polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm) using i-scan optical enhancement (OE) based on the narrow-band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. The study compared the diagnostic accuracy between experts who were already familiar with the NICE classification and trainees who were not, both before and after receiving brief training on the NICE classification. (2) Method: This prospective, single-center clinical trial was conducted at the Dong-A University Hospital from March 2020 to August 2020 and involved two groups of participants. The first group comprised two experienced endoscopists who were proficient in using i-scan OE and had received formal training in optical diagnosis and dye-less chromoendoscopy (DLC) techniques. The second group consisted of three endoscopists in the process of training in internal medicine at the Dong-A University Hospital. Each endoscopist examined the polyps and evaluated them using the NICE classification through i-scan OE. The results were not among the participants. Trained endoscopists were divided into pre- and post-training groups. (3) Results: During the study, a total of 259 DCPs were assessed using i-scan OE by the two expert endoscopists. They made real-time histological predictions according to the NICE classification criteria. For the trainee group, before training, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for predicting histopathological results using i-scan OE were 0.791, 0.775, and 0.818. However, after receiving training, the AUROCs improved to 0.935, 0.949, and 0.963, which were not significantly different from the results achieved by the expert endoscopists. (4) Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of i-scan OE, along with the NICE classification, in predicting the histopathological results of DCPs during colonoscopy. In addition, this study suggests that even an endoscopist without experience in DLC can effectively use i-scan OE to improve diagnostic performance with only brief training.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, with healthcare workers at a high risk of exposure. During this pandemic, endoscopists must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including face shields, to prevent COVID-19 transmission; however, few studies have reported the impact of face shields on the quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aimed to determine whether the use of PPE, including face shields, affected the quality of GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The medical records of patients who had undergone screening or surveillance colonoscopy and gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at Dong-A University Hospital between June 2020 and March 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Endoscopists wore isolation gowns, disposable gloves, and KF94 masks from June 2020 to October 2020. From November 2020, endoscopists also wore face shields. We compared GI endoscopy quality indicators between the first five months (no face shields) and the second five months (with face shields). In the non-face shield and face shield groups, we calculated the overall adenoma detection rates (ADRs), polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR), complete resection rate (CRR), number of polyps and/or adenomas per colonoscopy, and gastric ESD procedure time. In total, 1359 study patients had undergone screening or surveillance colonoscopy (face shield group, n = 679; non-face shield group, n = 680). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed (PDR, 49.04 vs. 52.50%, p = 0.202; ADR, 38.59 vs. 38.97%, p = 0.884; SSPDR, 1.91 vs. 1.32%, p = 0.388; ANDR, 3.98 vs. 3.97%, p = 0.991, respectively). No difference was found in colonoscopy quality indicators between patients examined by experienced and trainee endoscopists with and without face shields. Of 144 study patients who had undergone gastric ESD for gastric neoplasms, there were 72 patients in each group. No statistically significant differences were found in the CRR (94.44 vs 93.05%, p = 1.000) and procedure times (19.22 ± 9.33 vs. 19.03 ± 11.49, p = 0.911). Wearing face shields during the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the quality indicators for GI endoscopy.