Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps

Colonoscopic Polypectomy Preferences of Asian Endoscopists: Results of a Survey-Based Study

Background/Aims

The clinical practice pattern of polypectomy is not well-investigated in Asian countries. We aimed to survey Asian endoscopists about their preferred polypectomy techniques for given conditions and images of polyps.

Methods

A survey was performed using questionnaires composed of two parts a scenario-based questionnaire using scenarios of polyps, which were adopted from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and an image-based questionnaire using provided endoscopic images of polyps.

Results

A total of 154 endoscopists participated in this survey. The most preferred resection techniques for diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6–9 mm), and benign-looking intermediate (10–19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps were cold forceps polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, in both the scenario- and image-based questionnaires. For benign-looking large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were preferred in the scenario- and image-based surveys, respectively. In case of malignant nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and ESD were preferred for intermediate-sized and large lesions, respectively, according to the scenario-based survey. However, ESD was preferred in both intermediate-sized and large malignant nonpedunculated polyps according to the image-based survey. Trainee endoscopists, endoscopists working in referral centers, and endoscopists in the colorectal cancer–prevalent countries were independently associated with preference of cold snare polypectomy for removing small polyps.

Conclusions

The polypectomy practice patterns of Asian endoscopists vary, and cold snare polypectomy was not the most preferred resection method for polyps <10 mm in size, in contrast to recent guidelines. (Gut Liver 2021;15-400)

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) published ''Daicho Polyp Shinryo Guideline 2014'' in Japanese and a part of this guideline was published in English as "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps" in the Journal of Gastroenterology in 2015. A revised version of the Japanese-language guideline was published in 2020, and here we introduce a part of the contents of revised version.

METHODS

The guideline committee discussed and drew up a series of clinical questions (CQs). Recommendation statements for the CQs were limited to items with multiple therapeutic options. Items with established conclusions that had 100% agreement with previous guidelines (background questions) and items with no (or old) evidence that are topics for future research (future research questions: FRQs) were given descriptions only. To address the CQs and FRQs, PubMed, ICHUSHI, and other sources were searched for relevant articles published in English from 1983 to October 2018 and articles published in Japanese from 1983 to November 2018. The Japan Medical Library Association was also commissioned to search for relevant materials. Manual searches were performed for questions with insufficient online references.

RESULTS

The professional committee created 18 CQs and statements concerning the current concept and diagnosis/treatment of various colorectal polyps, including their epidemiology, screening, pathophysiology, definition and classification, diagnosis, management, practical treatment, complications, and surveillance after treatment, and other colorectal lesions (submucosal tumors, nonneoplastic polyps, polyposis, hereditary tumors, ulcerative colitis-associated tumors/carcinomas).

CONCLUSIONS

After evaluation by the moderators, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps were proposed for 2020. This report addresses the therapeutic related CQs introduced when formulating these guidelines.

Definition and management of colorectal polyposis not associated with APC/MUTYH germline pathogenic variants: AIFEG consensus statement

An expert consensus panel convened by the Italian Association for Inherited and Familial Gastrointestinal Tumors (Associazione Italiana per lo Studio della Familiarità ed Ereditarietà dei Tumori Gastrointestinali, AIFEG) reviewed the literature and agreed on a number of position statements regarding the definition and management of polyposis coli without an identified pathogenic mutation on the APC or MUTYH genes, defined in the document as NAMP (non-APC/MUTYH polyposis).

Real-Time Polyp Detection, Localization and Segmentation in Colonoscopy Using Deep Learning

Computer-aided detection, localisation, and segmentation methods can help improve colonoscopy procedures. Even though many methods have been built to tackle automatic detection and segmentation of polyps, benchmarking of state-of-the-art methods still remains an open problem. This is due to the increasing number of researched computer vision methods that can be applied to polyp datasets. Benchmarking of novel methods can provide a direction to the development of automated polyp detection and segmentation tasks. Furthermore, it ensures that the produced results in the community are reproducible and provide a fair comparison of developed methods. In this paper, we benchmark several recent state-of-the-art methods using Kvasir-SEG, an open-access dataset of colonoscopy images for polyp detection, localisation, and segmentation evaluating both method accuracy and speed. Whilst, most methods in literature have competitive performance over accuracy, we show that the proposed ColonSegNet achieved a better trade-off between an average precision of 0.8000 and mean IoU of 0.8100, and the fastest speed of 180 frames per second for the detection and localisation task. Likewise, the proposed ColonSegNet achieved a competitive dice coefficient of 0.8206 and the best average speed of 182.38 frames per second for the segmentation task. Our comprehensive comparison with various state-of-the-art methods reveals the importance of benchmarking the deep learning methods for automated real-time polyp identification and delineations that can potentially transform current clinical practices and minimise miss-detection rates.

Colorectal polyp characterization with standard endoscopy: Will Artificial Intelligence succeed where human eyes failed?

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has proposed the "resect-and-discard" and "diagnose-and-leave" strategies for diminutive colorectal polyps to reduce the costs of unnecessary polyp resection and pathology evaluation. However, the diagnostic thresholds set by these guidelines are not always met in community practice. To overcome this sub-optimal performance, artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied to the field of endoscopy. The incorporation of deep learning algorithms with AI models resulted in highly accurate systems that match the expert endoscopists' optical biopsy and exceed the ASGE recommended thresholds. Recent studies have demonstrated that the integration of AI in clinical practice results in significant improvement in endoscopists' diagnostic accuracy while reducing the time to make a diagnosis. Yet, several points need to be addressed before AI models can be successfully implemented in clinical practice. In this review, we summarize the recent literature on the application of AI for characterization of colorectal polyps, and review the current limitation and future directions for this field.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: This study aimed to compare artificial intelligence (AI)-aided colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for polyp detection. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and Ovid for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AI-aided colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for polyp detection. The last search was performed on July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: Seven RCTs published between 2019 and 2020 with a total of 5427 individuals were included. When compared with conventional colonoscopy, AI-aided colonoscopy significantly improved PDR (P < .001, odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75 to 2.19, I² = 0%) and ADR (P < .001, OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.95, I² = 33%). Besides, polyps in the AI-aided group were significantly smaller in size than those in conventional group (P = .004, weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.15, I² = 0%). In addition, AI-aided group detected significantly less proportion of advanced adenoma (P = .03, OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.97, I² = 46%), pedicle polyps (P < .001, OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83, I² = 0%), and pedicle adenomas (P < .001, OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.80, I² = 0%). Conclusion: AI-aided colonoscopy could significantly increase the PDR and ADR, especially for those with small size. Besides, the shape and pathology recognition of the AI technique should be further improved in the future.

Risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies

Risk stratification by index colonoscopy is well established for first surveillance endoscopy, but whether the previous two colonoscopies affect the subsequent advanced neoplasias has not been established. Therefore, the subsequent risk based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies were investigated. This retrospective, cohort study was conducted in two clinics and included participants who had undergone two or more colonoscopies after index colonoscopy. High-risk was defined as advanced adenoma (≥ 1 cm, or tubulovillous or villous histology, or high-grade dysplasia). Based on the findings of the index and first surveillance colonoscopies, patients were classified into four categories: category A (both colonoscopy findings were normal), category B (no high-risk findings both times), category C (one time high-risk finding), and category D (high-risk findings both times). The incidence of subsequent advanced neoplasia was examined in each category. A total of 13,426 subjects were included and surveyed during the study periods. The subjects in category D had the highest risk of advanced neoplasia (27.4%, n = 32/117). The subjects in category A had the lowest risk (4.0%, n = 225/5,583). The hazard ratio for advanced neoplasia of category D compared to category A was 9.90 (95% Confidence interval 6.82-14.35, P<0.001). Classification based on the findings of index and first surveillance colonoscopies more effectively stratifies the risk of subsequent advanced neoplasia, resulting in more proper allocation of colonoscopy resources after two consecutive colonoscopies.

Is jumbo biopsy forceps comparable to cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyps? - a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Diminutive colorectal polyps are increasingly being detected and it is not clear whether jumbo biopsy forceps (JBF) has comparable efficacy to that of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for management of these lesions. Methods  An electronic literature search was performed for studies comparing resection rates of JBF and CSP for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm). The primary outcome was incomplete resection rate (IRR). Secondary outcomes included failure of tissue retrieval and complication rates (post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation etc.). Leave-one-out analysis was performed to examine the disproportionate role of any of the studies. Meta-analysis outcomes and heterogeneity (I ² ) were computed using Comprehensive meta-analysis software. Results  A total of 4 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective study) with 407 patients and 569 total polyps (mean size of 3.62 mm) was included for analysis. IRR of JBF was slightly higher than that of CSP (10.2 % vs 7.2 %) but this was not statistically significantly different (Pooled OR 1.76; 95 % CI 0.94-3.28; I ²  = 0 ). Leave-one-out analysis showed no significant difference in the pooled OR comparison either. Two of the 4 studies reported 0 % failure of tissue retrieval for JBF and 1 % and 4.3 % for CSP. There were no complications for either group from the 2 studies that reported this outcome. The quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Conclusions  This systematic review with only limited data shows that JBF and CSP are not statistically different in completely removing diminutive polyps, although careful endoscopic assessment is needed to ensure complete removal of all polyp tissue.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Molecular characteristics of colorectal hyperplastic polyp subgroups

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The importance of hyperplastic polyps during colorectal carcinogenesis is appreciated related to the understanding of serrated pathway. The morphologic subtypes of hyperplastic polyps in carcinogenesis and the nomenculature of lesions with both hyperplastic and adenomatous areas are controversial. We aimed to reveal the molecular properties of hyperplastic polyp subtypes and the molecular changes in polyps containing both hyperplastic and adenomatous areas. Matherial and Methods: 49 hyperplastic polyps [19 microvesicular (MVHP), 19 goblet-rich (GRHP), 11 mucin-poor (MPHP)] and 10 mixed hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps were analysed for KRAS, BRAF mutations and MSI with real-time PCR.

RESULTS

68,4% of MVHPs and 81% of MPHPs which were localized in right colon had BRAF mutations. While none of the GRHPs showing a KRAS mutation with a rate of 73% was localized in the ascending colon, 63% of them were localized in the rectosigmoid area. In five (50%) of the mixed polyps, KRAS mutation was detected both in the hyperplastic and adenoma components. There was no BRAF mutation in any of the mixed polyps. However, in two cases, the hyperplastic component was MSI-H and the adenoma area was MSS.

CONCLUSION

Hyperplastic polyps, even if smaller than 5 mm, are precancerous lesions bearing different mutations. GRHPs with predominant KRAS mutations and MVHPs and MPHSs with predominant BRAF mutations are precancerous. Although the molecular investigations for HPP/SP are not necessary the morphological subtyping should be included if the case is diagnosed with HPP/SP as it will be useful for attracting the gastroenterologist's attention.

Improved Accuracy in Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps Using Convolutional Neural Networks with Visual Explanations

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Narrow-band imaging (NBI) can be used to determine whether colorectal polyps are adenomatous or hyperplastic. We investigated whether an artificial intelligence (AI) system can increase the accuracy of characterizations of polyps by endoscopists of different skill levels.

METHODS

We developed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for evaluation of diminutive colorectal polyps, based on efficient neural architecture searches via parameter sharing with augmentation using NBIs of diminutive (≤5 mm) polyps, collected from October 2015 through October 2017 at the Seoul National University Hospital, Healthcare System Gangnam Center (training set). We trained the CNN using images from 1100 adenomatous polyps and 1050 hyperplastic polyps from 1379 patients. We then tested the system using 300 images of 180 adenomatous polyps and 120 hyperplastic polyps, obtained from January 2018 to May 2019. We compared the accuracy of 22 endoscopists of different skill levels (7 novices, 4 experts, and 11 NBI-trained experts) vs the CNN in evaluation of images (adenomatous vs hyperplastic) from 180 adenomatous and 120 hyperplastic polyps. The endoscopists then evaluated the polyp images with knowledge of the CNN-processed results. We conducted mixed-effect logistic and linear regression analyses to determine the effects of AI assistance on the accuracy of analysis of diminutive colorectal polyps by endoscopists (primary outcome).

RESULTS

The CNN distinguished adenomatous vs hyperplastic diminutive polyps with 86.7% accuracy, based on histologic analysis as the reference standard. Endoscopists distinguished adenomatous vs hyperplastic diminutive polyps with 82.5% overall accuracy (novices, 73.8% accuracy; experts, 83.8% accuracy; and NBI-trained experts, 87.6% accuracy). With knowledge of the CNN-processed results, the overall accuracy of the endoscopists increased to 88.5% (P < .05). With knowledge of the CNN-processed results, the accuracy of novice endoscopists increased to 85.6% (P < .05). The CNN-processed results significantly reduced endoscopist time of diagnosis (from 3.92 to 3.37 seconds per polyp, P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a CNN that significantly increases the accuracy of evaluation of diminutive colorectal polyps (as adenomatous vs hyperplastic) and reduces the time of diagnosis by endoscopists. This AI assistance system significantly increased the accuracy of analysis by novice endoscopists, who achieved near-expert levels of accuracy without extra training. The CNN assistance system can reduce the skill-level dependence of endoscopists and costs.

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey

Background and study aims  Optical real-time diagnosis (= resect-and-discard strategy) is an alternative to histopathology for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, clinical adoption of this approach seems sparse. We were interested in evaluating potential clinical uptake and barriers for implementation of this approach. Methods  We conducted an international survey using the "Google forms" platform. Nine endoscopy societies distributed the survey. Survey questions measured current clinical uptake and barriers for implementing the resect-and-discard strategy , perceived cancer risk associated with diminutive polyps and potential concerns with using CT-colonography as follow-up, as well as non-resection of diminutive polyps. Results  Eight hundred and eight endoscopists participated in the survey. 84.2 % (95 % CI 81.6 %-86.7 %) of endoscopists are currently not using the resect-and-discard strategy and 59.9 % (95 % CI 56.5 %-63.2 %) do not believe that the resect-and-discard strategy is feasible for implementation in its current form. European (38.5 %) and Asian (45 %) endoscopists had the highest rates of resect-and-discard practice, while Canadian (13.8 %) and American (5.1 %) endoscopists had some of the lowest implementation rates. 80.3 % (95 % CI 77.5 %-83.0 %) of endoscopists believe that using the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive polyps will not increase cancer risk. 48.4 % (95 % CI 45.0 %-51.9 %) of endoscopists believe that leaving diminutive polyps in place is associated with increased cancer risk. This proportion was slightly higher (54.7 %; 95 % CI 53.6 %-60.4 %) when asked if current CT-colonography screening practice might increase cancer risks. Conclusion  Clinical uptake of resect-and-discard is very low. Most endoscopists believe that resect-and-discard is not feasible for clinical implementation in its current form. The most important barriers for implementation are fear of making an incorrect diagnosis, assigning incorrect surveillance intervals and medico-legal consequences.

Prediction of Polyp Pathology Using Convolutional Neural Networks Achieves "Resect and Discard" Thresholds

OBJECTIVES

Reliable in situ diagnosis of diminutive (≤5 mm) colorectal polyps could allow for "resect and discard" and "diagnose and leave" strategies, resulting in $1 billion cost savings per year in the United States alone. Current methodologies have failed to consistently meet the Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations (PIVIs) initiative thresholds. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have the potential to predict polyp pathology and achieve PIVI thresholds in real time.

METHODS

We developed a CNN-based optical pathology (OP) model using Tensorflow and pretrained on ImageNet, capable of operating at 77 frames per second. A total of 6,223 images of unique colorectal polyps of known pathology, location, size, and light source (white light or narrow band imaging [NBI]) underwent 5-fold cross-training (80%) and validation (20%). Separate fresh validation was performed on 634 polyp images. Surveillance intervals were calculated, comparing OP with true pathology.

RESULTS

In the original validation set, the negative predictive value for adenomas was 97% among diminutive rectum/rectosigmoid polyps. Results were independent of use of NBI or white light. Surveillance interval concordance comparing OP and true pathology was 93%. In the fresh validation set, the negative predictive value was 97% among diminutive polyps in the rectum and rectosigmoid and surveillance concordance was 94%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of in situ diagnosis of colorectal polyps using CNN. Our model exceeds PIVI thresholds for both "resect and discard" and "diagnose and leave" strategies independent of NBI use. Point-of-care adenoma detection rate and surveillance recommendations are potential added benefits.

Artificial Intelligence for the Determination of a Management Strategy for Diminutive Colorectal Polyps: Hype, Hope, or Help

Most colorectal polyps are diminutive, and malignant potential for these polyps is uncommon, especially for those in the rectosigmoid. However, many diminutive polyps are still being resected to determine whether these are adenomas or serrated/hyperplastic polyps. Resecting all the diminutive polyps is not cost-effective. Therefore, gastroenterologists have proposed optical diagnosis using image-enhanced endoscopy for polyp characterization. These technologies have achieved favorable outcomes, but are not widely available. Artificial intelligence has been used in clinical medicine to classify lesions. Here, artificial intelligence technology for the characterization of colorectal polyps is discussed in a decision-making context regarding diminutive colorectal polyps.

Best Practices for Resection of Diminutive and Small Polyps in the Colorectum

Diminutive colorectal lesions are polyps and flat lesions 1 to 5 mm in size, and small are 6 to 9 mm in size. The best resection method is the cold snare. Cold forceps are acceptable for 1- to 3-mm lesions, but should not be used to piecemeal polyps. Cold snaring has few complications and is more effective than cold forceps for 4- to 5-mm polyps and as effective and more efficient than hot snaring for 6- to 9-mm polyps.

[Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening]

CLINICAL PROBLEM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Most colorectal cancers derive from benign precursor lesions, so-called adenomatous polyps, over a long period of time. Colorectal cancer screening is based on the detection of precancerous polyps and early stage CRC in asymptomatic individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. The protective effect of screening programs can be improved by increasing the screening rates.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Apart from the established examinations, CT colonography (CTC) has been proposed as an optional test for colorectal cancer screening. The detection rates of CTC for large polyps and cancer are similar to the ones of colonoscopy and superior to stool-based tests. CTC is therefore the radiological test of choice for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. It has replaced double contrast barium enema for almost all indications. As a minimally invasive procedure, CTC has a high safety profile and good patient acceptance. The evaluation of extracolonic organs in addition to the colon can increase examination efficacy. The option to choose CTC as a CRC screening test has the potential to increase the overall screening rates.

Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) have been shown to be effective for removing diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm). However, no study has compared complete resection rates between CSP and JFP for DCPs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of JFP with CSP for the removal of DCPs.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial from 2 tertiary-care referral centers. A total of 1003 patients were screened, and 169 patients with 196 DCPs were enrolled. The main outcome was complete polyp resection rate.

RESULTS

Of 196 diminutive polyps, 177 (90.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate was 92.1% (163/177). The complete resection rate was not significantly different between JFP and CSP groups (92.0% vs 92.2%; P = .947). JFP achieved complete resection rates comparable with CSP for polyps >3 mm (90.3% vs 89.8%; P = .928). Polypectomy procedure time, tissue retrieval rate, and rate of postpolypectomy adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both JFP and CSP achieved complete resection rates of >90% for DCPs. Thus, JFP may be considered for polypectomy of DCPs. (International clinical trial registry number: KCT0002805.).

Blue-light imaging compared with high-definition white light for real-time histology prediction of colorectal polyps less than 1 centimeter: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a new chromoendoscopy technique, potentially useful for differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions. The present study was aimed at comparing BLI with high-definition white light (HDWL) in the real-time histology prediction of colon polyps <10 mm.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy with the ELUXEO 7000 endoscopy platform and 760 series video colonoscopes (Fujifilm Co, Tokyo, Japan) who had at least 1 polyp <10 mm were randomized to BLI or HDWL for polyp characterization. The accuracy of high-confidence real-time histology prediction (adenoma vs not adenoma) by either BLI or HDWL for polyps <10 mm (primary end-point) and diminutive (≤5 mm) polyps was calculated, along with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, with histopathology as the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 483 polyps were detected in 245 randomized patients (125 and 120 in the BLI and HDWL arms, respectively). A total of 358 were diminutive, and 283 were adenomas. Overall, 222 (85.7%) and 193 (86.1%) polyps were characterized with high confidence by BLI and HDWL, respectively (P = .887), with an overall accuracy of 92% and 84%, respectively (P = .011). The accuracy was significantly higher by BLI than HDWL, also for diminutive polyps (92% vs 83%; P = .008). When BLI was used, the negative predictive value for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps was 88%, and the post-polypectomy surveillance interval was correctly attributed in 85.7% and 93.7% of patients, respectively, according to U.S. and European guidelines.

CONCLUSION

BLI was superior to HDWL for the real-time prediction of histology in polyps <10 mm. A BLI-dedicated classification might further improve the endoscopist performance. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03274115.).

Diminutive Polyps With Advanced Histologic Features Do Not Increase Risk for Metachronous Advanced Colon Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

METHODS

We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61).

CONCLUSION

In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

Should We Resect and Discard Low Risk Diminutive Colon Polyps

Diminutive colorectal polyps <5 mm are very common and almost universally benign. The current strategy of resection with histological confirmation of all colorectal polyps is costly and may increase the risk of colonoscopy. Accurate, optical diagnosis without histology can be achieved with currently available endoscopic technologies. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations supports strategies for optical diagnosis of small non neoplastic polyps as long as two criteria are met. For hyperplastic appearing polyps <5 mm in recto-sigmoid colon, the negative predictive value should be at least 90%. For diminutive low grade adenomatous appearing polyps, a resect and discard strategy should be sufficiently accurate such that post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations based on the optical diagnosis, agree with a histologically diagnosis at least 90% of the time. Although the resect and discard as well as diagnose and leave behind approach has major benefits with regard to both safety and cost, it has yet to be used widely in practice. To fully implement such as strategy, there is a need for better-quality training, quality assurance, and patient acceptance. In the article, we will review the current state of the science on optical diagnose of colorectal polyps and its implications for colonoscopy practice.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Real-time differentiation of adenomatous and hyperplastic diminutive colorectal polyps during analysis of unaltered videos of standard colonoscopy using a deep learning model

BACKGROUND

In general, academic but not community endoscopists have demonstrated adequate endoscopic differentiation accuracy to make the 'resect and discard' paradigm for diminutive colorectal polyps workable. Computer analysis of video could potentially eliminate the obstacle of interobserver variability in endoscopic polyp interpretation and enable widespread acceptance of 'resect and discard'.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model for real-time assessment of endoscopic video images of colorectal polyps. A deep convolutional neural network model was used. Only narrow band imaging video frames were used, split equally between relevant multiclasses. Unaltered videos from routine exams not specifically designed or adapted for AI classification were used to train and validate the model. The model was tested on a separate series of 125 videos of consecutively encountered diminutive polyps that were proven to be adenomas or hyperplastic polyps.

RESULTS

The AI model works with a confidence mechanism and did not generate sufficient confidence to predict the histology of 19 polyps in the test set, representing 15% of the polyps. For the remaining 106 diminutive polyps, the accuracy of the model was 94% (95% CI 86% to 97%), the sensitivity for identification of adenomas was 98% (95% CI 92% to 100%), specificity was 83% (95% CI 67% to 93%), negative predictive value 97% and positive predictive value 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

An AI model trained on endoscopic video can differentiate diminutive adenomas from hyperplastic polyps with high accuracy. Additional study of this programme in a live patient clinical trial setting to address resect and discard is planned.

The Natural History of Colorectal Polyps: Overview of Predictive Static and Dynamic Features

For decades, colorectal screening strategies have been largely driven by static features, particularly polyp size. Although cross-sectional features of polyp size, morphology, and location are important determinants of clinical relevance before histology, they lack any dynamic information on polyp growth rates. Computed tomography colonography allows for in vivo surveillance of colorectal polyps, providing volumetric growth rates that are providing new insights into tumorigenesis. In this article, existing cross-sectional and longitudinal data on colorectal polyps are reviewed, with an emphasis on how these features may affect clinical relevance and patient management.

Can the Sum of Adenoma Diameters (Adenoma Bulk) on Index Examination Predict Risk of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia?

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that adenoma size and number are more important predictors of metachronous colorectal neoplasia than advanced histology. Furthermore, there is poor reproducibility in diagnosing advanced histology; high-grade dysplasia and villous histology. Therefore we developed a new metric, adenoma bulk, the sum of diameters of all baseline adenomas, regardless of advanced features.

GOAL

Compare the predictive value for metachronous advanced neoplasia of adenoma bulk to conventional paradigm.

STUDY

Data were collected prospectively in a multicenter adenoma-chemoprevention trial (2004 to 2013). For the conventional paradigm, high-risk baseline findings were defined as ≥3 adenomas, large adenomas (≥1 cm) or adenomas with villous components or high-grade dysplasia. Adenoma bulk was examined across quartiles and as a continuous variable. Predictive characteristics (sensitivities, specificities, c-statistics) for metachronous advanced neoplasia using conventional criteria and adenoma bulk were calculated. receiver operator characteristic curves were computed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1948 adults had index and follow-up colonoscopies (mean follow-up, 45.2 mo). Those with an adenoma bulk ≥10 mm (4th quartile) had a higher metachronous advanced neoplasia risk (14.4% vs. 6.9-8.2% in lower 3 quartiles; P=0.0002). The c-statistics and sensitivities (specificity fixed at 0.73) for the adenoma bulk and conventional models were 0.587 and 0.563 (P=0.17) and 0.396 and 0.390, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Categorizing sporadic adenoma patients as high versus low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia by adenoma bulk of <versus ≥10 mm may be comparably predictive as conventional paradigm and simplifies risk stratification by obviating need for additional histology regarding extent of villous component or degree of dysplasia in resected polyps. The adenoma bulk metric and the 10 mm cutoff in particular would have to be validated in other populations before it can be used in clinical practice.

Simplifying Resect and Discard Strategies for Real-Time Assessment of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

During endoscopy, the resect and discard strategy, if performed with high confidence, can be used to determine histologic features of diminutive colorectal polyps (5 mm or less). These polyps can then be removed and discarded without pathology assessment. However, the complexities of real-time optical assessment and follow-up management have provided challenges to widespread use of this approach. We aimed to determine the outcomes of simple alternative strategies, in which all diminutive polyps can be resected and discarded.

METHODS

We collected data from 2 previous studies that used narrow-band imaging to assess polyps, performed at 5 medical centers (1658 patients with 2285 diminutive polyps; 15 endoscopists). We compared 3 resect and discard strategies: the currently used optical strategy, which relies on high confidence optical assessment of all diminutive polyps; a location-based strategy that classifies all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps a priori as hyperplastic and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon a priori as neoplastic; and a simplified optical strategy, in which all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps are classified as hyperplastic unless confidently assessed as neoplastic, and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon are classified as neoplastic unless confidently assessed as hyperplastic polyps. The primary outcome was the agreement of the surveillance interval calculated for each strategy with the surveillance interval determined by pathology analysis.

RESULTS

The proportion of surveillance intervals that agreed with pathology-based surveillance recommendations was slightly higher when the optical strategy was used compared to the location-based strategy or simplified optical strategy (94% vs 89% and 90%, respectively; P < .001). When the 5-10 year recommendations for patients with low-risk polyps were applied as a 10-year surveillance interval, all 3 strategies resulted in surveillance interval agreement compared to pathology above 90% (the quality benchmark). Use of the simplified or location-based strategy could have avoided pathology analysis for 77% of all polyps, compared to 59% if the optical strategy was used (P < .001). In addition, a higher proportion of patients could receive recommendations immediately after colonoscopy with use of the simplified or location based strategy (65%) compared to the optical strategy (40%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A location-based and a simplified optical resect and discard strategy produced surveillance recommendations that were in agreement with those from pathology analysis for at least 90% of patients, assuming a 10-year surveillance interval for patients with low-risk polyps. These strategies could further reduce the number of pathology examinations and provide more patients with immediate surveillance recommendations. Optical assessment might be reduced or might not be required for resect and discard. Clintrials.gov no: NCT01935180 and NCT01288833.

Structured reporting and quality control in CT colonography

Standardized recommended techniques for performing and reporting CT colonography (CTC) examinations were developed by a consensus of experts. Published reporting guidelines, known as the CT colonography reporting and data system supplemented by recently updated comprehensive recommendations were incorporated into the American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guidelines. The application of continuous quality improvement to the practice of CT was aided by the development of an ACR national data registry (NRDR) for CTC that addressed both process and outcome quality measures. These measures can be used to benchmark an institution's CTC practice as compared to all participants. This article will discuss the best practices for reporting CTC and describe the use of NRDR to foster quality CTC performance.

Current standards and new developments of colorectal polyp management and resection techniques

Colonoscopy and endoscopic removal of precancerous polyps play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Improved endoscopes and quality standards have led to an increasing polyp and adenoma detection rate. Optimal polyp resection techniques and management strategies are key for an effective colonoscopy practice. Areas covered: Strategies for how to improve diminutive polyp (polyps up to 5 mm in size) management are discussed because of their high prevalence. Systematic removal of diminutive polyps leads to increasing costs of colonoscopy practice, while the effect on colorectal cancer prevention might be negligible. Furthermore, polypectomy recommendations for mid-size and large polyps are provided. For all larger polyps larger, complete and safe resection is mandatory to avoid post colonoscopy cancers. The focus for managing such larger polyps is to use new techniques (i.e. cold snares) and to attempt complete removal and to reduce post-polypectomy complications. Expert commentary: The resect-and-discard strategy is a promising management strategy for diminutive polyps. However, modification of this approach might be required in order to make widespread adoption feasible. Cold snare polypectomy is a promising new approach for small polyp resection. For resection of large polyps adequate treatment recommendations with regard to endoscopic mucosal resection and complication prevention are provided.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Polyp Resection - Controversial Practices and Unanswered Questions

Detection and complete removal of precancerous neoplastic polyps are central to effective colorectal cancer screening. The prevalence of neoplastic polyps in the screening population in the United States is likely >50%. However, most persons with neoplastic polyps are never destined to develop cancer, and do not benefit for finding and removing polyps, and may only be harmed by the procedure. Further 70-80% of polyps are diminutive (≤5 mm) and such polyps almost never contain cancer. Given the questionable benefit, the high-cost and the potential risk changing our approach to the management of diminutive polyps is currently debated. Deemphasizing diminutive polyps and shifting our efforts to detection and complete removal of larger and higher-risk polyps deserves discussion and study. This article explores three controversies, and emerging concepts related to endoscopic polyp resection. First, we discuss challenges of optical resect-and-discard strategy and possible alternatives. Second, we review recent studies that support the use of cold snare resection for ≥5 mm polyps. Thirdly, we examine current evidence for prophylactic clipping after resection of large polyps.