The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in high-income countries, with more than 730 000 new cases diagnosed globally each year.¹ The disease is expected to also become a large burden for less-developed countries in the near future.²

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post‐polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an approved therapeutic procedure that exerts cytotoxic activity toward tumor cells by inducing production of reactive oxygen species such as singlet oxygen. PDT leads to oxidative damage of cellular macromolecules, including proteins that undergo multiple modifications such as fragmentation, cross-linking, and carbonylation that result in protein unfolding and aggregation. Because the major mechanism for elimination of carbonylated proteins is their degradation by proteasomes, we hypothesized that a combination of PDT with proteasome inhibitors might lead to accumulation of carbonylated proteins in endoplasmic reticulum (ER), aggravated ER stress, and potentiated cytotoxicity toward tumor cells. We observed that Photofrin-mediated PDT leads to robust carbonylation of cellular proteins and induction of unfolded protein response. Pretreatment of tumor cells with three different proteasome inhibitors, including bortezomib, MG132, and PSI, gave increased accumulation of carbonylated and ubiquitinated proteins in PDT-treated cells. Proteasome inhibitors effectively sensitized tumor cells of murine (EMT6 and C-26) as well as human (HeLa) origin to PDT-mediated cytotoxicity. Significant retardation of tumor growth with 60% to 100% complete responses was observed in vivo in two different murine tumor models (EMT6 and C-26) when PDT was combined with either bortezomib or PSI. Altogether, these observations indicate that combination of PDT with proteasome inhibitors leads to potentiated antitumor effects. The results of these studies are of immediate clinical application because bortezomib is a clinically approved drug that undergoes extensive clinical evaluations for the treatment of solid tumors. [Cancer Res 2009;69(10):4235–43]

Objective Pain associated with colonoscopy is a major burden for patients. We investigated modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after colonoscopy. Design This cross-sectional analysis included database records from 23 centres participating in a population-based colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. Colonoscopies were performed under three sedation modalities: none, benzodiazepine-opioid sedation or propofol sedation. We used Gastronet (a validated tool) to assess patients’ pain during and after colonoscopy; pain was scored on a four-point scale (no, little, moderate or severe pain), with moderate to severe defined as painful. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate ORs for painful colonoscopy and calculated risk-adjusted ratios of painful colonoscopies per endoscopist and compared it to the mean rate. Results Of 35 216 screening colonoscopies in 2014 and 2015 included in our study, 22 725 (64.5%) patients returned valid Gastronet questionnaires. The proportion of examinations described as causing pain during (after) the procedure was 22.5% (14.2%) for unsedated, 19.9% (13.5%) for benzodiazepine-opioid sedation and 2.5% (7.5%) for propofol sedation. Propofol sedation, higher case volume of endoscopists, newest endoscope generation and adequate bowel preparation were significantly associated with lower odds of painful colonoscopy. Pain scores after colonoscopy showed similar associations. Adjusted pain rates during and after colonoscopy varied 11 and over 23-fold, respectively, between endoscopists. Conclusion We identified several independent, modifiable factors associated with pain during and after colonoscopy, of which individual endoscopist was the most important. Dedicated training should be considered to decrease variability among endoscopists.