Colonoscopy is central to colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention, and its effectiveness is determined by the quality of mucosal inspection and lesion detection. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains the most widely validated quality benchmark due to its strong inverse association with interval CRC. However, reliance on ADR alone is increasingly recognized as insufficient, particularly given the growing understanding of the serrated neoplasia pathway, which contributes up to one-third of sporadic CRCs. This has driven the emergence of complementary metrics, such as the sessile polyp detection rate (SPDR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). Although SPDR offers important advantages for capturing serrated pathology, challenges persist, including interobserver variability, inconsistent pathology thresholds, limited endoscopist training, and the absence of standardized benchmarks. Alongside these evolving metrics, technological advancements such as image-enhanced endoscopy, computer-aided detection, high-definition optics, and distal attachment devices have demonstrated measurable improvements in detecting subtle lesions and reducing operator-dependent variability. Large real-world registries, including GIQuIC, now support the development and validation of composite models that integrate ADR, SPDR, and APC to better reflect the full spectrum of neoplasia detection. As the field advances, redefining colonoscopy quality will require reconciling established metrics with newer indicators that more comprehensively address both conventional adenomas and serrated lesions.

Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) follow divergent incidence trajectories in the United States. Rising use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and evolving demographic risk profiles may be reshaping these trends. We aimed to characterize national incidence patterns of EAC and ESCC from 2000 through 2022—stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity—and to place these in the context of changing behavioral exposures. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER 21 registry data (covering 48% of the U.S. population). We included first-primary, histologically confirmed EAC (ICD-O-3 codes 8140–8576) and ESCC (8050–8084) in individuals aged ≥ 15 years diagnosed between 2000 and 2022. Age-adjusted incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years; 2000 U.S. standard) and annual percent changes (APCs) were estimated via Joinpoint regression models. Results: A total of 90,290 EAC and 47,916 ESCC cases were identified. EAC incidence increased from 2.3 to 2.8 per 100,000 (APC +0.90%; 95% CI, 0.45–1.35), with the largest relative rises in ages 15–39 years (APC +1.50%) and among women (APC +2.65%). Non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experienced the most pronounced EAC increases. Overall ESCC incidence declined (APC −0.78%; 95% CI, −1.10 to −0.46), though Asian/Pacific Islander (+3.59%) and American Indian/Alaska Native (+1.58%) groups saw rising rates. Conclusions: EAC incidence continues to climb—especially in younger adults, women, and select racial/ethnic minorities—while ESCC declines are uneven. These histology-specific patterns highlight the urgency of tailored prevention, targeted early-detection efforts, and mechanistic studies on emerging exposures such as vaping.

Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) follow divergent incidence trajectories in the United States. Rising use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and evolving demographic risk profiles may be reshaping these trends. We aimed to characterize national incidence patterns of EAC and ESCC from 2000 through 2022—stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity—and to place these in the context of changing behavioral exposures. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 21 registry data (covering \~48% of the U.S. population). We included first‐primary, histologically confirmed EAC (ICD-O-3 codes 8140–8576) and ESCC (8050–8084) in individuals aged ≥ 15 years diagnosed between 2000 and 2022. Age‐adjusted incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years; 2000 U.S. standard) and annual percent changes (APCs) were estimated via Joinpoint regression models. Results: A total of 90,290 EAC and 47,916 ESCC cases were identified. EAC incidence increased from 2.3 to 2.8 per 100,000 (APC +0.90%; 95% CI, 0.45–1.35), with the largest relative rises in ages 15–39 years (APC +1.50%) and among women (APC +2.65%). Non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experienced the most pronounced EAC increases. Overall ESCC incidence declined (APC –0.78%; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.46), though Asian/Pacific Islander (+3.59%) and American Indian/Alaska Native (+1.58%) groups saw rising rates. Conclusion: EAC incidence continues to climb—especially in younger adults, women, and select racial/ethnic minorities—while ESCC declines are uneven. These histology-specific patterns highlight the urgency of tailored prevention, targeted early-detection efforts, and mechanistic studies on emerging exposures such as vaping.

Background/Objectives: Esophageal pH monitoring is a key diagnostic modality in the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and employs either a traditional transnasal catheter or wireless probe. In clinical practice, findings from these studies are often represented by a single metric, such as acid exposure time (AET), designed to quantitatively summarize reflux burden. However, these composite scores are susceptible to error derived from sensor position, patient diet and posture, transient pH fluctuations, anatomical variations, and esophageal motility. This study sought to identify false-positive mechanisms in esophageal pH testing. Methods: We retrospectively identified institutional logs of false-positive pH findings from a single medical center from January 2019 to January 2025, and in conjunction with expert opinion, we classified false-positive patterns based on the original clinical interpretation. Results: The most common mechanism was technical error originating from factors that directly impact sensor integrity, such as a dislodged capsule or withdrawal of the transnasal catheter. Additional confounders comprised patient-specific variables, including esophageal stasis or behavioral disorders like belching or rumination syndrome. Conclusions: Ultimately, false-positive GERD findings are uncommon but can occur when AET is derived from misleading data. We also sought to develop a diagnostic framework that incorporates clinical context, adjunctive testing, and sensor verification protocols in order to mitigate confounders inherent to ambulatory pH monitoring. This study represents one of the first evaluations of false-positive patterns in esophageal pH testing, offering insight that may ultimately enhance precision and clinical decision-making in the diagnosis of GERD.