medscape.com
Virtual Chromoendoscopy Beats Other Modalities at Neoplasia Detection in IBD
Detecting neoplasia early is a central goal of IBD surveillance; this study suggests virtual chromoendoscopy may find more lesions than dye or white light in real-world practice, which could influence how surveillance is done and what patients are offered during colonoscopy.
Clinicians performing IBD surveillance, endoscopy unit leads, researchers in endoscopic imaging, and patients with long-standing IBD or PSC undergoing surveillance.
What To Know
What to know This Medscape report summarizes a multicenter retrospective cohort presented at ECCO 2025 comparing endoscopic imaging modalities for IBD surveillance.
The study reviewed 2673 surveillance colonoscopies (dye chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, and high-definition white light) performed across five UK centers from 2019–2023 and found the highest neoplasia detection rate with virtual chromoendoscopy (19%) versus dye chromoendoscopy (12%) and white light endoscopy (9%).
The authors and session discussants noted substantial real-world variability between centers in surveillance practice, differences in withdrawal times, and heterogeneity in patient mixes; the report stresses these as limitations. Ongoing analyses will look at neoplasia types, endoscopist experience, and repeat procedures.
This is a conference-associated observational study reported by Medscape; it is not a guideline change or randomized trial result. The article quotes presenters and commentators and notes potential conflicts of interest.
Who should pay attention Clinicians who perform IBD surveillance colonoscopies, endoscopy units planning surveillance protocols, and researchers studying endoscopic detection methods. Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s colitis, or PSC who undergo surveillance may also be interested in evolving detection methods.
More context Retrospective, real-world cohorts can show associations but have biases (heterogeneous patient mixes, variable withdrawal times, and center practices). Medscape’s piece reports meeting data rather than a peer-reviewed full manuscript; guideline recommendations may still evolve as further analyses and publications appear.
Findings come from a retrospective multicenter cohort presented at a conference; there are noted limitations including variable withdrawal times and heterogeneous patient populations between centers. This is not a guideline change by itself.
