Impact of reassessment of colonic hyperplastic polyps by expert GI pathologists

Three pathologic criteria for reproducible diagnosis of colonic sessile serrated lesion versus hyperplastic polyp

Colonic SSLs are thought to predispose to ∼30% of colonic adenocarcinomas. This increased risk, compared to benign HPs, makes their distinction vitally important. However, no gold standard exists to differentiate them, and wide observer variability is reported. To better distinguish these polyps, we investigated 94 serrated polyps (53 SSLs and 41 HPs) using an easy-to-apply pathologic scoring system that combines, for the first time, three established distinguishing features: polyp morphology, location, and size. As an additional novel approach, polyp size was assessed by serrated biopsy number compared to endoscopic size. RNA expression profiling served as an additional biomarker. The considerable morphologic overlap across serrated polyps was quantitated for the first time. Interobserver variability was assessed by 8 expert gastrointestinal pathologists. By ROC analysis, polyp size by biopsy number performed best, followed by polyp location and morphology (areas under the curves [AUCs] = 85.9%, 81.2%, and 65.9%, respectively). Optimal discrimination combined all 3 features (AUC = 92.9%). For polyp size, the biopsy number proved superior to endoscopic size (AUC = 85.9% versus 55.2%, P = .001). Interobserver variability analysis yielded the highest reported Fleiss and Kappa statistics (0.879) and percent agreement (96.8%), showing great promise toward improved diagnosis. The proposed 3-criteria pathologic system, combining size by biopsy number, location, and morphology, yields an improved, easy-to-use, and highly reproducible diagnostic approach for differentiating SSLs and HPs.

Comparison of adenoma detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate and their effect on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality in screening patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with serrated polyps are at increased risk for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC); however, evidence for a dedicated serrated polyp detection rate is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with PCCRC death.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis within the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy. Spearman's rank coefficient was calculated for the assessment of association between ADR and PSDR. Whether ADR or PSDR were associated with colorectal cancer mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

229 /729 screening colonoscopies performed by 308 endoscopists were analyzed. The ADR (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 percentage point increase 0.98, 95 %CI 0.96-0.99) as well as the PSDR (HR per 1 percentage point increase 0.97, 95 %CI 0.94-0.99) were significantly associated with PCCRC death. The correlation coefficient of the ADR and PSDR calculated at every colonoscopy was 0.70 (95 %CI 0.70-0.71), and the corresponding PSDR value for an ADR performance standard of 25 % was 11.1 %. At the end of the study period, 86 endoscopists (27.9 %) reached an ADR of > 25 % and a PSDR of > 11.1 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The ADR as well as the PSDR were associated with PCCRC death. Striving for a high PSDR in addition to a high ADR might reduce the risk for PCCRC mortality in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

What size cutoff level should be used to implement optical polyp diagnosis?

BACKGROUND : The risk of advanced pathology increases with polyp size, as does the potential for mismanagement when optical diagnosis is used. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients who would be assigned inadequate surveillance intervals when different size cutoffs are adopted for use of optical diagnosis. METHODS : In a post hoc analysis of three prospective studies, the use of optical diagnosis was evaluated for three polyp size groups: 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom advanced adenomas were found and optical diagnosis resulted in delayed surveillance. Secondary outcomes included agreements between surveillance intervals based on high confidence optical diagnosis and pathology outcomes, reduction in histopathological examinations, and proportion of patients who could receive an immediate surveillance recommendation. RESULTS : We included 3374 patients (7291 polyps ≤ 10 mm) undergoing complete colonoscopies (median age 66.0 years, 75.2 % male, 29.6 % for screening). The percentage of patients with advanced adenomas and either 2- or 7-year delayed surveillance intervals (n = 79) was 3.8 %, 15.2 %, and 25.3 % for size cutoffs of 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm polyps, respectively (P < 0.001). Surveillance interval agreements between pathology and optical diagnosis for the three groups were 97.2 %, 95.5 %, and 94.2 %, respectively. Total reductions in pathology examinations for the three groups were 33.5 %, 62.3 %, and 78.2 %, respectively. CONCLUSION : A 3-mm cutoff for clinical implementation of optical diagnosis resulted in a very low risk of delayed management of advanced neoplasia while showing high surveillance interval agreement with pathology and a one-third reduction in overall requirement for pathology examinations.

Surveillance Recommendation for Colonoscopy after Polypectomy

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have declined over the past several decades, largely due to improvement and uptake in screening, particularly with colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC published guidelines for surveillance after polypectomy in 2012, which were updated in 2020 with some important changes, and this review will provide an updated overview of evidence and outcomes of surveillance after polypectomy. Notable modifications to surveillance guidelines include increasing interval time between colonoscopies from 5 to 7 to 10 years for 1 to 2 low-risk adenomas (<10 mm) and from 3 years to 3 to 5 years when 3 to 4 low-risk adenomas are identified.

Accuracy in optical diagnosis for polyps between 5 and 15 mm and its implications on surveillance. A prospective, multicenter study. (POPS study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polyps histology and diameter up to 1 cm determine whether a patient needs a colonoscopy after 3 years or less, or far ahead. Endoscopists' and pathologists' size estimations can be imprecise. Our aim was to assess endoscopist ability to correctly recommend surveillance colonoscopies for patients with polyps around the 10 mm threshold, based on its endoscopic sizing and optical diagnosis by NBI.

METHODS

NBI-assisted diagnosis and endoscopist estimation of polyp size were compared with reference standard, considering this as the post resection polyp measurements by the nurse assistant and the pathologic results, in a prospective, multicenter, real life study, that recruited adults undergoing colonoscopy in five hospitals. By comparing the endoscopic and pathologist size estimation, with polyps' measurement after resection, and optical and histological diagnoses in patients with polyps between 5 and 15 mm, sensitivity was assessed at the patient level by means of two characteristics: the presence of adenoma, and the surveillance interval. Surveillance intervals were established by the endoscopist, based on optical diagnosis, and by another gastroenterologist, grounded on the pathologic report. Determinants of accuracy were explored at the polyp level.

RESULTS

532 polyps were resected in 451 patients. Size estimation was more precise for the endoscopist. Endoscopist sensitivity for the presence of adenoma or carcinoma was 98.7%. Considering the presence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer, sensitivity was 82.6% for the endoscopic optical diagnosis. Sensitivity for a correct 3-year surveillance interval was 91.5%, specificity 82.3%, with a PPV of 93.2% and NPV of 78.5% for the endoscopist. 6.51% of patients would have had their follow-up colonoscopy delayed, whereas 22 (4.8%) would have it been performed earlier, had endoscopist recommendations been followed.

CONCLUSION

Our study observes that NBI optical diagnosis can be recommended in routine practice to establish surveillance intervals for polyps between 5 and 15 mm.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04232176.

Definition of competence standards for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1:  In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2:  In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. CONCLUSION : The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: A review of current state of practice and research

Colonoscopy is an effective screening procedure in colorectal cancer prevention programs; however, colonoscopy practice can vary in terms of lesion detection, classification, and removal. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted decision support systems for endoscopy is an area of rapid research and development. The systems promise improved detection, classification, screening, and surveillance for colorectal polyps and cancer. Several recently developed applications for AI-assisted colonoscopy have shown promising results for the detection and classification of colorectal polyps and adenomas. However, their value for real-time application in clinical practice has yet to be determined owing to limitations in the design, validation, and testing of AI models under real-life clinical conditions. Despite these current limitations, ambitious attempts to expand the technology further by developing more complex systems capable of assisting and supporting the endoscopist throughout the entire colonoscopy examination, including polypectomy procedures, are at the concept stage. However, further work is required to address the barriers and challenges of AI integration into broader colonoscopy practice, to navigate the approval process from regulatory organizations and societies, and to support physicians and patients on their journey to accepting the technology by providing strong evidence of its accuracy and safety. This article takes a closer look at the current state of AI integration into the field of colonoscopy and offers suggestions for future research.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: Can we improve the diagnostic yield?

Although adenomas and serrated polyps are the preneoplastic lesions of colorectal cancer, only few of them will eventually progress to cancer. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present and future of post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance. Post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines have recently been updated and all share the aim towards more selective and less frequent surveillance. We have examined these current guidelines and compared the recommendations of each of them. To improve the diagnostic yield of post-polypectomy surveillance it is important to find predictors of metachronous polyps that better identify high-risk individuals of developing advanced neoplasia. For this reason, we have also conducted a literature review of the molecular biomarkers of metachronous advanced colorectal polyps. Finally, we have discussed future directions of post-polypectomy surveillance and identified possible strategies to improve the use of endoscopic resources with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods  Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I ² ). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results  A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %-3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I ²  = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %-3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %-11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias ( P  < 0.01). Conclusion  Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.

Variation Over Time and Factors Associated With Detection Rates of Sessile Serrated Lesion Across the United States: Results Form a National Sample Using the GIQuIC Registry

INTRODUCTION

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are important precursor lesions for the CpG island-methylated pathway to colorectal cancer. The reported detection rates of SSL are highly variable, and national or population-based estimates are not available. Patient-, provider-, and procedure-level factors associated with the detection rates of SSL have not been well described. The aim of our study was to study the detection rates of SSL, variability of rates over time, and factors associated with detection rates of SSL in a national sample of patients undergoing colonoscopy using the GIQuIC registry.

METHODS

We used colonoscopies submitted to the GIQuIC registry from 2014 to 2017 on adults, aged 18-89 years. Only the first colonoscopy record per patient was included. Indications for colonoscopy were categorized as screening, diagnostic, and surveillance. We used the hierarchical logistic models to study the factors associated with the detection rates of SSL. The Cochrane-Armitage test was used to study the significance of trend over time.

RESULTS

There were a total of 5,173,211 colonoscopies performed by 3,934 endoscopists during the study period. Among the 2,101,082 screening colonoscopies over the study period in adults older than or equal to 50 years that were complete to the cecum, the average detection rate per endoscopist for SSL was 6.43% (SD 5.18) and 6.25% standardized for the 2010 US population. There was a significant increase in the detection rates of SSLs from screening colonoscopies over the study period from 4.99% in 2014 to 7.09% in 2017 (P trend <0.001). Clinically significant factors associated with higher detection rates of SSL were longer withdrawal times (>11 minutes vs ≤6 minutes) (odds ratio [OR] 9.61; 9.03-10.24), adequate preparation (OR 1.25; 1.22-1.28), female sex (OR 1.17; 1.16-1.18), and use of a specialized gastrointestinal pathology group (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.19).

DISCUSSION

Population-based estimates of the detection rates of SSL are 6% and have increased over time.

Artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy: Recent developments and future perspectives

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially after the successful application of Convolutional Neural Networks, are revolutionizing modern medicine. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has shown to be a fertile terrain for the development of AI systems aiming to aid endoscopists in various aspects of their daily activity. Lesion detection can be one of the two main aspects in which AI can increase diagnostic yield and abilities of endoscopists. In colonoscopy, it is well known that a substantial rate of missed neoplasia is still present, representing the major cause of interval cancer. In addition, an extremely high variability in adenoma detection rate, the main key quality indicator in colonoscopy, has been extensively reported. The other domain in which AI is believed to have a considerable impact on everyday clinical practice is lesion characterization and aid in “optical diagnosis”. By predicting in vivo histology, such pathology costs may be averted by the implementation of two separate but synergistic strategies, namely the “leave-in-situ” strategy for < 5 mm hyperplastic lesions in the rectosigmoid tract, and “resect and discard” for the other diminutive lesions. In this opinion review we present current available evidence regarding the role of AI in improving lesions’ detection and characterization during colonoscopy.

Hyperplastic polyp or sessile serrated lesion? The contribution of serial sections to reclassification

BACKGROUND

The histological discrimination of hyperplastic polyps from sessile serrated lesions can be difficult. Sessile serrated lesions and hyperplastic polyps are types of serrated polyps which confer different malignancy risks, and surveillance intervals, and are sometimes difficult to discriminate. Our aim was to reclassify previously diagnosed hyperplastic polyps as sessile serrated lesions or confirmed hyperplastic polyps, using additional serial sections.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data for all colorectal hyperplastic polyps diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 was collected. The slides were reviewed and classified as hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesion, or other, using current World Health Organization criteria. Eight additional serial sections were performed for the confirmed hyperplastic polyp group and reviewed.

RESULTS

Of an initial 147 hyperplastic polyps from 93 patients, 9 (6.1%) were classified as sessile serrated lesions, 103 as hyperplastic polyps, and 35 as other. Of the 103 confirmed hyperplastic polyps, 7 (6.8%) were proximal, and 8 (7.8%) had a largest fragment size of ≥5 mm and < 10 mm. After 8 additional serial sections, 11 (10.7%) were reclassified as sessile serrated lesions. They were all less than 5 mm and represented 14.3% of proximal polyps and 10.4% of distal polyps. An average of 3.6 serial sections were required for a change in diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Histopathological distinction between hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated lesions remains a challenge. This study has uncovered a potential role for the use of additional serial sections in the morphological reappraisal of small hyperplastic polyps, especially when proximally located.

Colonoscopic techniques in polyp detection: An Egyptian study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is defined as the percentage of colonoscopies in which one or more polyps are detected, and has been shown to be highly correlated with the adenoma detection rate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the PDR at the Endoscopy Unit of the Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Egypt, through the i-SCAN, Endocuff, and underwater colonoscopy techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on 100 Egyptian subjects over 50 years of age. Their polyp detection rate was measured through 4 different colonoscopic techniques. An equal number of patients were divided into 4 groups: i-SCAN, Endocuff, underwater colonoscopy, and controls. The control group was examined using standard white light colonoscopy. The colonoscopy evaluation included the type of agent utilized for bowel preparation, preparation grade, and colonoscopy withdrawal time.

RESULTS

The general PDR was 48%. The i-SCAN technique had the highest rate (56%), followed by the underwater (52%) and the Endocuff (48%) techniques.

CONCLUSION

The i-SCAN and underwater colonoscopy techniques produced higher PDR than the Endocuff-assisted and standard techniques, but with no statistical significance.

Colorectal Serrated Neoplasia: An Institutional 12-Year Review Highlights the Impact of a Screening Programme

Background

As the malignant potential of sessile serrated lesions/polyps (SSL/Ps) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) has been clearly demonstrated, it is important that serrated polyps are identified and correctly classified histologically.

Aim

Our aim was to characterize the clinicopathological features of a series of SSL/Ps & TSAs, to assess the accuracy of the pathological diagnosis, the incidence, and the rate of dysplasia in SSL/Ps & TSAs.

Methods

We identified all colorectal serrated polyps between 01/01/2004 and 31/05/2016, by searching the laboratory information system for all cases assigned a “serrated adenoma” SNOMED code. All available and suitable slides were reviewed by one pathologist, who was blinded to the original diagnosis and the site of the polyp. Subsequently discordant cases, SSL/Ps with dysplasia, and all TSAs were reviewed by a second pathologist.

Results

Over a 149-month period, 759 “serrated adenoma” polyps were identified, with 664 (from 523 patients) available for review. 41.1% were reviewed by both pathologists; 15.1% (100/664) were reclassified, with the majority being changed from SSL/P to hyperplastic polyp (HYP) (66/664; 9.9%). 80.3% of these HYPs were located in the left colon, and the majority exhibited prolapse effect. There were 520 SSL/Ps (92.2%) & 40 TSAs (7.1%). The majority of SSL/Ps were in the right colon (86.7%) and were small (64.5% <1 cm), while most TSAs were in the left colon (85.7%) and were large (73.1%≥1 cm). 6.7% of SSL/Ps exhibited dysplasia, the majority of which were large (66.7%≥1 cm). Following consensus review, 13/520 (2.5%) SSL/Ps were downgraded from SSL/P with dysplasia to SSL/P without dysplasia. Detection of SSL/Ps peaked in the most recent years reviewed (87.5% reported between 2013 and 2016, inclusive), coinciding with the introduction of “BowelScreen” (the Irish FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme).

Conclusions

Awareness of, and adherence to, diagnostic criteria is essential for accurate classification of colorectal polyps.

Fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: Colonoscopy findings by different cut-off levels

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but number of tests and cut-off level differ by program. The aim was to evaluate CRC screening with two FIT samples in average-risk 60-year-old men and women and to investigate hemoglobin (Hb) level in correlation to adenoma characteristics.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort from Screening of Swedish Colons trial where participants with at least one of two FIT samples ≥10 μg Hb/g are offered colonoscopy. FIT levels and colonoscopy findings were assessed in multivariable analyses. Cut-off levels 10-80 μg Hb/g for one and two samples were assessed. FIT levels and advanced neoplasia (AN) were investigated by gender.

RESULTS

A total of 12 383 participated and 1182 positives (551 women) completed colonoscopy diagnosing 27 (2.3%) CRC and 269 (23%) advanced adenomas (AA). Median FIT level was 241.0 and 23.8 for CRC and AA compared with 13.4-15.8 in other subgroups (P = 0.002) correlating with adenoma size (P = 0.038). CRC was detected in 22 and 19 subjects for the first sample at cut-off 20 and 40 μg Hb/g, compared with 20 and 17 for the mean of two samples at cut-off 40 and 80 μg Hb/g (P < 0.05). Men had more AN (CRC + AA), (P = 0.003). In women, similar number of AN would be detected with cut-off lowered from 40 to 20 or from 80 to 40 μg Hb/g, requiring additional 26-34% colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

In average-risk 60-year-olds, FIT was higher in participants with AN and correlated with adenoma size. FIT screening with one sample at low cut-off detected more CRC than two samples at higher cut-off. Applying lower cut-off in women to equalize gender differences in AN would result in considerable increase in colonoscopy workload.

The dark side of the colon: current issues surrounding the significance, prevalence, detection, diagnosis and management of serrated polyps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperplastic polyps, once considered to have no malignant potential, are now recognized to be part of a larger group of polyps known as serrated polyps. Serrated polyps can progress to CRC through an epigenetic pathway known as CpG Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP), characterized by hypermethylation of specific DNA regions such as the promoter regions of the DNA mismatch repair genes like MLH1. The CIMP pathway is tightly linked with mutations of the oncogene BRAF. There are three subtypes of serrated polyps - hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). TSAs harbor cytologic dysplasia whereas hyperplastic polyps and SSPs are nondysplastic lesions. Currently, only SSPs and TSAs are believed to progress to CRC whereas hyperplastic polyps are thought to be benign with no malignant potential. This article will review the current evidence while highlighting some of the issues regarding serrated polyps.

RECENT FINDINGS

One challenge has been pathologically distinguishing hyperplastic polyps from SSPs, which is an important distinction, given the potential for progression of SSPs to CRC. Other challenges regarding serrated polyps include adequate detection and resection. Surveillance guideline recommendations for some serrated polyps have been changed in current guidelines to reflect the malignant potential, recommending closer surveillance intervals than the 10-year follow-up that has been traditionally provided for hyperplastic polyps.

SUMMARY

Given the difficulties in diagnosing as well as resecting, it is important for endoscopists to know how to detect, resect and manage follow-up in patients with serrated polyps.

Factors Associated With Classification of Hyperplastic Polyps as Sessile Serrated Adenomas/Polyps on Morphologic Review

BACKGROUND

Distinguishing sessile serrated adenomas/polyp (SSA/P), a subset of serrated polyps, from hyperplastic polyps (HPs) remains a challenge and has surveillance implications. Our goal was to identify clinical and pathologic factors associated with serrated polyps originally read as HPs being reassessed as SSA/Ps versus confirmed as HPs.

METHODS

Data were collected from consecutive patients with a right-sided HP and a corresponding comparison group with conventional adenomas between 1993 and 2003. Two experienced gastrointestinal pathologists, blinded to polyp and clinical factors, reinterpreted the HPs using current SSA/P classification criteria. These HPs were classified as SSA/P when diagnostic histologic feature(s) were present in at least 3 crypts. Analyses, conducted on a per polyp basis, examined the factors associated with risk of individual HPs being reassessed as SSA/Ps as opposed to being confirmed as HPs.

RESULTS

Of the 702 HPs (355 adults), 188 (26.8%) were reclassified as SSA/Ps. Predictors of HPs being reinterpreted as SSA/Ps included: size ≥5 mm [odds ratio (OR), 2.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-3.26], proximal location (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.69-4.74), synchronous adenomas with advanced pathology (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.22-5.55) and ≥1 synchronous HPs (other than HP being reassessed) reclassified as SSA/Ps (OR, 11.76; 95% CI, 6.75-20.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Because HP versus SSP is not very reproducible the predictors of SSA/P that we identified, including size, location, and synchronous lesions, can offer some additional help to endoscopists when determining surveillance intervals in patients with serrated polyps. In addition, observed association between SSA/P with advanced conventional neoplasia (but not low-grade adenomas) suggests 2 distinct groups of patient predisposition, one with both advanced conventional and important serrated precursors (SSA/P) and the other largely restricted to nonadvanced conventional adenomas and HPs only. Whether the association reported here has to do with SSA/P diagnosis per se or generally larger size of SSA/P remains to be determined in future studies.

Changing pathological diagnosis from hyperplastic polyp to sessile serrated adenoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

The WHO published a new classification of colonic polyps in 2010, including the group of serrated polyps, which can be divided into hyperplastic polyps (HP), traditional serrated adenomas, and sessile serrated adenomas (SSA) or polyps. To assess the rate of re-diagnosis of HP to SSA and to look for possible predictors for changing the diagnosis. English Medical literature searches were performed for 'reassessment' OR 'reclassification' AND 'hyperplastic polyp' OR 'sessile serrated adenoma' till 31 January 2017. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Studies that included a precise re-diagnosis of HP into SSA were included. We also looked for predictors of SSA diagnosis such as polyp location and size, patient sex and age, and synchronous advanced adenoma. Altogether, we found 220 eligible studies; 212 were excluded as they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria and we were left with eight studies including 2625 patients. The odds ratio for the number of polyps with changed pathological diagnosis from HP to SSA was 0.112 with 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.099-0.126 (P<0.0001) or 11.2%. Heterogeneity between studies was significant with Q=199.4, d.f. (Q)=9, P<0.0001, and I=95.486%. The odds ratio for changing the pathological diagnosis from HP to SSA for polyp proximal location and polyp size more than 5 mm were 4.401, 95% CI: 2.784-6.958, P<0.0001, and 8.336, 95% CI: 4.963-15.571, P<0.0001, respectively. Endoscopists and pathologists should be aware of the SSA diagnosis when finding HPs larger than 5 mm in the right colon. The diagnosis of HP in these cases should be reassessed by experienced gastrointestinal pathologists.

The Serrated Polyp Pathway: Is It Time to Alter Surveillance Guidelines?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this manuscript, we review current surveillance guidelines for serrated polyps (SPs) and discuss how recent studies inform the selection of appropriate surveillance intervals for patients with SPs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large and/or proximal SPs, particularly sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), are associated with increased risk of both synchronous and metachronous neoplasia, including advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC). Persons harboring multiple SSPs or dysplastic SSPs are at the highest risk. Moreover, a high percentage of large and/or proximal SPs are reclassified as SSPs when read by trained gastrointestinal pathologists, even if they were originally reported as hyperplastic polyps. These findings support the adoption of surveillance guidelines that prescribe closer surveillance of large and/or proximal SPs, regardless of subtype. SSPs remain a challenge to reliably identify, resect, and diagnose via histology. The increased risk of future neoplasia in patients with SSPs is likely driven by a combination of underdetection, inadequate removal, misclassification, and biology. Until further evidence emerges, we support guidelines that recommend close surveillance of patients with a history of large and/or proximal SPs and SSPs specifically in order to mitigate the threat of interval CRC.

Prevalence of sessile serrated adenoma/polyp in hyperplastic-appearing diminutive rectosigmoid polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends that distal colon hyperplastic lesions can be left in place without resection if adenomatous histology can be excluded with >90% negative predictive value. However, some lesions could be sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), which is also precancerous. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of SSA/Ps in hyperplastic-appearing diminutive rectosigmoid polyps.

METHODS

We prospectively placed 513 consecutive diminutive rectosigmoid polyps that appeared hyperplastic to an expert endoscopist in individual bottles for pathologic. Each polyp was examined by 3 expert GI pathologists.

RESULTS

The prevalence of SSA/P in the study polyps ranged from .6% to 2.1%. The lowest negative predictive value found by the endoscopist for the combination of adenomas plus SSA/Ps was 96.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of SSA/Ps in diminutive rectosigmoid hyperplastic-appearing polyps is very low. These results support the safety and feasibility of a "do not resect" policy for diminutive hyperplastic-appearing rectosigmoid polyps.

The clinical impact of serrated colorectal polyps

Serrated polyps (SPs) of the colorectum pose a novel challenge to practicing gastroenterologists. Previously thought benign and unimportant, there is now compelling evidence that SPs are responsible for a significant percentage of incident colorectal cancer worldwide. In contrast to conventional adenomas, which tend to be slow growing and polypoid, SPs have unique features that undermine current screening and surveillance practices. For example, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are flat, predominately right-sided, and thought to have the potential for rapid growth. Moreover, SSPs are subject to wide variations in endoscopic detection and pathologic interpretation. Unfortunately, little is known about the natural history of SPs, and current guidelines are based largely on expert opinion. In this review, we outline the current taxonomy, epidemiology, and management of SPs with an emphasis on the clinical and public health impact of these lesions.