Endoscopic mis-sizing of polyps changes colorectal cancer surveillance recommendations

Measuring Size of Colorectal Polyps Using a Virtual Scale Endoscope or Visual Assessment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of polyp size measurements using a virtual scale endoscope (VSE) with an integrated laser-based adaptive scale function and visual assessment (VA) during colonoscopies.

METHODS

We conducted a single-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients (aged 45-80 years) undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies were randomly assigned (1:1) into 2 groups. In the intervention group, all detected polyps were measured for size using VSE; in the control group, all polyps were measured using VA. Size measurements were compared with a reference standard of digital caliper measurement immediately post polypectomy. The primary outcome was the relative accuracy of real-time VSE measurement compared with VA. Secondary outcomes included the mean differences and the correlations between VSE or VA sizes and the reference standard of measurement.

RESULTS

Overall, 230 patients were enrolled and randomized. The relative size measurement accuracy of VSE was 84% in 118 polyps, which was significantly higher than that of VA (105 polyps; 68.4%, P < 0.001). VSE resulted in a significantly higher percentage of size measurements within 25% of true size compared with VA (81.4% vs 41%, P < 0.001). VSE had a significantly lower percentage for >5-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-5 mm compared with VA (13.5% vs 57.1%; P < 0.001) and a significantly lower percentage for >3-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-3 mm compared with VA (11.3% vs 56.5%; P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

VSE significantly improves the size measurement accuracy of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies compared with VA and results in fewer misclassifications at relevant decision-making size thresholds.

Effect of an online educational module incorporating real-time feedback on accuracy of polyp sizing in trainees: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although polyp size dictates surveillance intervals, endoscopists often estimate polyp size inaccurately. We hypothesized that an intervention providing didactic instruction and real-time feedback could significantly improve polyp size classification.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of different components of an online educational module on polyp sizing. Participants were randomized to control (no video, no feedback), video only, feedback only, or video + feedback. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp size classification into clinically relevant categories (diminutive [1-5mm], small [6-9mm], large [≥10mm]). Secondary outcomes included accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm), learning curves, and directionality of inaccuracy (over- vs. underestimation).

RESULTS

36 trainees from five training programs provided 1360 polyp size assessments. The feedback only (80.1%, P=0.01) and video + feedback (78.9%, P=0.02) groups had higher accuracy of polyp size classification compared with controls (71.6%). There was no significant difference in accuracy between the video only group (74.4%) and controls (P=0.42). Groups receiving feedback had higher accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm) and higher peak learning curves. Polyps were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, and 29.3% of size inaccuracies impacted recommended surveillance intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our online educational module significantly improved polyp size classification. Real-time feedback appeared to be a critical component in improving accuracy. This scalable and no-cost educational module could significantly decrease under- and overutilization of colonoscopy, improving patient outcomes while increasing colonoscopy access.

Enhancing endoscopic measurement: validating a quantitative method for polyp size and location estimation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Accurate measurement of polyps size is crucial in predicting malignancy, planning relevant intervention strategies and surveillance schedules. Endoscopists' visual estimations can lack precision. This study builds on our prior research, with the aim to evaluate a recently developed quantitative method to measure the polyp size and location accurately during a simulated endoscopy session.

METHODS

The quantitative method merges information about endoscopic positions obtained from an electromagnetic tracking sensor, with corresponding points on the images of the segmented polyp border. This yields real-scale 3D coordinates of the border of the polyp. By utilising the sensor, positions of any anatomical landmarks are attainable, enabling the estimation of a polyp's location relative to them. To verify the method's reliability and accuracy, simulated endoscopies were conducted in pig stomachs, where polyps were artificially created and assessed in a test-retest manner. The polyp measurements were subsequently compared against clipper measurements.

RESULTS

The average size of the fifteen polyps evaluated was approximately 12 ± 4.3 mm, ranging from 5 to 20 mm. The test-retest reliability, measured by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for polyp size estimation, demonstrated an absolute agreement of 0.991 (95% CI 0.973-0.997, p < 0.05). Bland & Altman analysis revealed a mean estimation difference of - 0.17 mm (- 2.03%) for polyp size and, a mean difference of - 0.4 mm (- 0.21%) for polyp location. Both differences were statistically non-significant (p > 0.05). When comparing the proposed method with calliper measurements, the Bland & Altman plots showed 95% of size estimation differences between - 1.4 and 1.8 mm (- 13 to 17.4%) which was not significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method of measurements of polyp size and location was found to be highly accurate, offering great potential for clinical implementation to improve polyp assessment. This level of performance represents a notable improvement over visual estimation technique used in clinical practice.

A real-time deep learning-based system for colorectal polyp size estimation by white-light endoscopy: development and multicenter prospective validation

BACKGROUND

The choice of polypectomy device and surveillance intervals for colorectal polyps are primarily decided by polyp size. We developed a deep learning-based system (ENDOANGEL-CPS) to estimate colorectal polyp size in real time.

METHODS

ENDOANGEL-CPS calculates polyp size by estimating the distance from the endoscope lens to the polyp using the parameters of the lens. The depth estimator network was developed on 7297 images from five virtually produced colon videos and tested on 730 images from seven virtual colon videos. The performance of the system was first evaluated in nine videos of a simulated colon with polyps attached, then tested in 157 real-world prospective videos from three hospitals, with the outcomes compared with that of nine endoscopists over 69 videos. Inappropriate surveillance recommendations caused by incorrect estimation of polyp size were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The relative error of depth estimation was 11.3% (SD 6.0%) in successive virtual colon images. The concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) between system estimation and ground truth were 0.89 and 0.93 in images of a simulated colon and multicenter videos of 157 polyps. The mean CCC of ENDOANGEL-CPS surpassed all endoscopists (0.89 vs. 0.41 [SD 0.29]; P<0.001). The relative accuracy of ENDOANGEL-CPS was significantly higher than that of endoscopists (89.9% vs. 54.7%; P<0.001). Regarding inappropriate surveillance recommendations, the system's error rate is also lower than that of endoscopists (1.5% vs. 16.6%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ENDOANGEL-CPS could potentially improve the accuracy of colorectal polyp size measurements and size-based surveillance intervals.

Tumor size discrepancy between endoscopic and pathological evaluations in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Tumor size impacts the technical difficulty and histological curability of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, the preoperative evaluation of tumor size is often different from histological assessment. Analyzing influential factors on failure to obtain an accurate tumor size evaluation could help prepare optimal conditions for safer and more reliable ESD.

AIM

To investigate the tumor size discrepancy between endoscopic and pathological evaluations and the influencing factors.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at a single institution. A total of 377 lesions removed by colorectal ESD at our hospital between April 2018 and March 2022 were collected. We first assessed the difference in size with an absolute percentage of the scaling discrepancy. Subsequently, we compared the clinicopathological characteristics of the correct scaling group (> -33% and < 33%) with that of the incorrect scaling group (< -33% or > 33%), which was further subdivided into the underscaling group (-33% or less of the discrepancy) and overscaling group (33% or more of the discrepancy), respectively. As secondary outcome measures, parameters on size estimation were compared between the underscaling and correct scaling groups, as well as between the overscaling and correct scaling groups. Finally, multivariate analysis was performed in terms of the following relevant parameters on size estimation: Pathological size, location, and possible influential factors (P < 0.1) in the univariate analysis.

RESULTS

The mean of absolute percentage in the scaling discordance was 21%, and 91 lesions were considered to be incorrectly estimated in size. The incorrect scaling was significantly remarkable in larger lesions (40 mm vs 28 mm; P < 0.001) and less experience (P < 0.001), and these two factors were influential on the underscaling (75 lesions; P < 0.001). Conversely, compared with the correct scaling group, 16 lesions in the overscaling group were significantly small (20 mm vs 28 mm; P < 0.001), and the small lesion size was influential on the overscaling (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Lesions indicated for colorectal ESD tended to be underestimated in large tumors, but overestimated in small ones. This discrepancy appears worth understanding for optimal procedural preparation.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Endoscopic measurement of the size of gastrointestinal polyps using an electromagnetic tracking system and computer vision-based algorithm

PURPOSE

Polyp size is an important factor that may influence diagnosis and clinical management decision, but estimation by visual inspection during endoscopy is often difficult and subject to error. The purpose of this study is to develop a quantitative approach that enables an accurate and objective measurement of polyp size and to study the feasibility of the method.

METHODS

We attempted to estimate polyp size and location relative to the gastro-oesophageal junction by integrating data from an electromagnetic tracking sensor and endoscopic images. This method is based on estimation of the three-dimensional coordinates of the borders of the polyp by combining the endoscope camera position and the corresponding points along the polyp border in endoscopic images using a computer vision-based algorithm. We evaluated the proposed method using a simulated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy model.

RESULTS

The difference between the mean of ten measurements of one artificial polyp and its actual size (10 mm in diameter) was 0.86 mm. Similarly, the difference between the mean of ten measurements of the polyp distance from the gastroesophageal junction and its actual distance (~ 22 cm) was 1.28 mm. Our results show that the changes in camera positions in which the images were taken and the quality of the polyp segmentation have the most impact on the accuracy of polyp size estimation.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated an innovative approach to endoscopic measurements using motion tracking technologies and computer vision and demonstrated its accuracy in determining the size and location of the polyp. The observed magnitude of error is clinically acceptable, and the measurements are available immediately after the images captured. To enhance accuracy, it is recommended to avoid identical images and instead utilise control wheels on the endoscope for capturing different views. Future work should further evaluate this innovative method during clinical endoscopic procedures.

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis with AI-Powered Breathomics: Navigating Challenges and Future Directions

Early detection of colorectal cancer is crucial for improving outcomes and reducing mortality. While there is strong evidence of effectiveness, currently adopted screening methods present several shortcomings which negatively impact the detection of early stage carcinogenesis, including low uptake due to patient discomfort. As a result, developing novel, non-invasive alternatives is an important research priority. Recent advancements in the field of breathomics, the study of breath composition and analysis, have paved the way for new avenues for non-invasive cancer detection and effective monitoring. Harnessing the utility of Volatile Organic Compounds in exhaled breath, breathomics has the potential to disrupt colorectal cancer screening practices. Our goal is to outline key research efforts in this area focusing on machine learning methods used for the analysis of breathomics data, highlight challenges involved in artificial intelligence application in this context, and suggest possible future directions which are currently considered within the framework of the European project ONCOSCREEN.

Frequency of endoscopic photodocumentation of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy quality affects colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer strongly recommends photodocumentation (PD) of lesions ≥10 mm in size (ie, large polyps [LPs]) pre-resection and suggests PD postresection to enhance the quality of colonoscopy. No studies have assessed the frequency of LP PD. We evaluated the frequency of and factors associated with PD of LPs.

METHODS

Reports from endoscopists performing ≥50 colonoscopies with LP resection between 2016 and 2021 were reviewed. The frequency of LP PD pre-resection and post-resection and factors associated with PD were collected. A composite score of 2 quality metrics (PD of completeness of examination and bowel preparation quality) was created. Endoscopists were divided into 2 tiers based on the frequency of the score on all included examinations: Tier 1, ≥95% of examinations; and Tier 2, <95% of examinations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess factors associated with PD.

RESULTS

A total of 1322 colonoscopies, 1693 LPs, and 25 endoscopists were included in this study. PD of LPs occurred in 1392 (82%) pre-resection and in 878 (52%) post-resection. Factors associated with pre-resection PD include endoscopist subspecialty (colorectal surgery vs gastroenterology: odds ratio [OR], .12; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04-.42); >1 LP on examination (2 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .27-.61]; and ≥3 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .24-.70]), and longer withdrawal time (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide the first data on PD of LP pre-resection and post-resection, which can inform future benchmarking in this area. The implications of PD on metachronous advanced neoplasia need to be studied.

Usefulness and Educational Benefit of a Virtual Scale Endoscope in Measuring Colorectal Polyp Size

INTRODUCTION

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a newly introduced endoscope that helps endoscopists in measuring colorectal polyp size (CPS) during colonoscopy by displaying a virtual scale. This study aimed to determine the usefulness of the VSE for CPS measurement and the educational benefit of using VSE images to improve CPS estimation accuracy.

METHODS

This study included 42 colorectal polyps in 26 patients treated at Hiroshima University Hospital. In study 1, CPS measured using a VSE before endoscopic mucosal resection was compared with CPS measured on resected specimens, and the agreement between the two measurement methods was evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis. In study 2, 14 endoscopists (5 beginners, 5 intermediates, and 4 experts) took a pre-test to determine the size of 42 polyps. After the pre-test, a lecture on CPS measurement using VSE images was given. One month later, the endoscopists took a post-test to compare CPS accuracy before and after the lecture.

RESULTS

In study 1, Bland-Altman analysis revealed no fixed or proportional errors. The mean bias ±95% limits of agreement (±1.96 standard deviations) of the measurement error was -0.05 ± 0.21 mm, indicating that the agreement between two measurement methods was sufficient. In study 2, the accuracy of CPS measurement was significantly higher among beginners (59.5% vs. 26.7%, p < 0.01) and intermediates (65.2% vs. 44.3%, p < 0.05) in the post-test than in the pre-test.

CONCLUSION

The VSE accurately measures CPS before resection, and its images are useful teaching tools for beginner and intermediate endoscopists.

Artificial intelligence-based polyp size measurement in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the auxiliary waterjet as a reference

BACKGROUND

Measurement of colorectal polyp size during endoscopy is mainly performed visually. In this work, we propose a novel polyp size measurement system (Poseidon) based on artificial intelligence (AI) using the auxiliary waterjet as a measurement reference.

METHODS

Visual estimation, biopsy forceps-based estimation, and Poseidon were compared using a computed tomography colonography-based silicone model with 28 polyps of defined sizes. Four experienced gastroenterologists estimated polyp sizes visually and with biopsy forceps. Furthermore, the gastroenterologists recorded images of each polyp with the waterjet in proximity for the application of Poseidon. Additionally, Poseidon's measurements of 29 colorectal polyps during routine clinical practice were compared with visual estimates.

RESULTS

In the silicone model, visual estimation had the largest median percentage error of 25.1 % (95 %CI 19.1 %-30.4 %), followed by biopsy forceps-based estimation: median 20.0 % (95 %CI 14.4 %-25.6 %). Poseidon gave a significantly lower median percentage error of 7.4 % (95 %CI 5.0 %-9.4 %) compared with other methods. During routine colonoscopies, Poseidon presented a significantly lower median percentage error (7.7 %, 95 %CI 6.1 %-9.3 %) than visual estimation (22.1 %, 95 %CI 15.1 %-26.9 %).

CONCLUSION

In this work, we present a novel AI-based method for measuring colorectal polyp size with significantly higher accuracy than other common sizing methods.

Estimating the size of colorectal polyps endoscopically: random guess or systematic error?

BACKGROUND

Size of colorectal polyps reflects potential for malignancy and helps define advanced lesions. Studies measuring ability of endoscopists to estimate polyp size show significant variation. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a linear relationship between endoscopic and pathologic polyp size.

METHODS

Data for adenomas removed completely by snare, in one piece, were retrieved from a prospectively recorded polyp database. Endoscopic estimate of maximum diameter was compared to that on the pathology report by linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were 126 polyps in 126 patients, 85 men and 41 women. Mean age was 63.2 ± 12.9 years. Mean endoscopic polyp size was 12.2 ± 9.3 mm and mean pathology size was 9.3 ± 6.9 mm. Endoscopically, 16 polyps were ≤ 5 mm, 62 were from 6 to 10 mm, 21 were from 11 to 15 mm, and 27 were from 16 to 55 mm. Twenty-nine polyps were right sided, 86 were left and 11 were rectal. Regression of endoscopic size against pathology size yielded a significant r² of 0.761. Using the regression formula of endoscopic size = 0.7 + 1.175× pathology size an endoscopic estimate of 10 mm (= advanced adenoma) means a pathologic size of 8 mm. For a pathologic size of 10 mm, an endoscopic estimate of 12 mm is needed. A large polyp is ≥20 mm; for this endoscopist a 20 mm polyp is really 16.4 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between endoscopic and directly measured size is linear over all polyp diameters, and likely represents a systematic error.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia After Removal of Diminutive Versus Small Nonadvanced Adenomas: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Current postpolypectomy guidelines treat 1-9 mm nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) as carrying the same level of risk for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN).

AIMS

To evaluate whether small (6-9 mm) NAAs are associated with a greater risk of metachronous ACRN than diminutive (1-5 mm) NAAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 10,060 index colonoscopies performed from July 2011 to June 2019. A total of 1369 patients aged ≥ 40 years with index NAAs and having follow-up examinations were categorized into 5 groups based on size and number of index findings: Group 1, ≤ 2 diminutive NAAs (n = 655); Group 2, ≤ 2 small NAAs (n = 529); Group 3, 3-4 diminutive NAAs (n = 78); Group 4, 3-4 small NAAs (n = 65); and Group 5, 5-10 NAAs (n = 42). Size was classified based on the largest NAA. ACRN was defined as finding an advanced adenoma or colorectal cancer at follow-up.

RESULTS

The absolute risk of metachronous ACRN increased from 7.2% in patients with all diminutive NAAs to 12.2% in patients with at least 1 small NAA (P = 0.002). Patients in Group 2 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-2.95), Group 3 (AOR 2.40; 95% CI 1.78-4.90), Group 4 (AOR 2.77; 95% CI 1.35-5.66), and Group 5 (AOR 3.71; 95% CI 1.65-8.37) were associated with an increased risk of metachronous ACRN compared with Group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small NAAs have an increased risk of metachronous ACRN. Postpolypectomy guidelines should consider including risk stratification between small and diminutive adenomas.

Diagnosis by Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath in Exhaled Breath from Patients with Gastric and Colorectal Cancers

One in three cancer deaths worldwide are caused by gastric and colorectal cancer malignancies. Although the incidence and fatality rates differ significantly from country to country, the rates of these cancers in East Asian nations such as South Korea and Japan have been increasing each year. Above all, the biggest danger of this disease is how challenging it is to recognize in its early stages. Moreover, most patients with these cancers do not present with any disease symptoms before receiving a definitive diagnosis. Currently, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are being used for the early prediction of several other diseases, and research has been carried out on these applications. Exhaled VOCs from patients possess remarkable potential as novel biomarkers, and their analysis could be transformative in the prevention and early diagnosis of colon and stomach cancers. VOCs have been spotlighted in recent studies due to their ease of use. Diagnosis on the basis of patient VOC analysis takes less time than methods using gas chromatography, and results in the literature demonstrate that it is possible to determine whether a patient has certain diseases by using organic compounds in their breath as indicators. This study describes how VOCs can be used to precisely detect cancers; as more data are accumulated, the accuracy of this method will increase, and it can be applied in more fields.

Comparing size measurements of simulated colorectal polyp size and morphology groups when using a virtual scale endoscope or visual size estimation: Blinded randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) allows projection of a virtual scale onto colorectal polyps allowing real-time size measurements. We studied the relative accuracy of VSE compared to visual assessment (VA) for the measuring simulated polyps of different size and morphology groups.

METHODS

We conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial using simulated polyps within a colon model. Sixty simulated polyps were evenly distributed across four size groups (1-5, >5-9.9, 10-19.9, and ≥20 mm) and three Paris morphology groups (flat, sessile, and pedunculated). Six endoscopists performed polyp size measurements using random allocation of either VA or VSE.

RESULTS

A total of 359 measurements were completed. The relative accuracy of VSE was significantly higher when compared to VA for all size groups >5 mm (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). For polyps ≤5 mm, the relative accuracy of VSE compared to VA was not significantly higher (P = 0.186). The relative accuracy of VSE was significantly higher when compared to VA for all morphology groups. VSE misclassified a lower percentage of >5 mm polyps as ≤5 mm (2.9%), ≥10 mm polyps as <10 mm (5.5%), and ≥20 mm polyps as <20 mm (21.7%) compared to VA (11.2%, 24.7%, and 52.3% respectively; P = 0.008, P < 0.001, and P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Virtual scale endoscope had significantly higher relative accuracies for every polyp size group or morphology type aside from diminutive. VSE enables the endoscopist to better classify polyps into correct size categories at clinically relevant size thresholds of 5, 10, and 20 mm.

Estimating colorectal polyp size with a virtual scale endoscope and visual estimation during colonoscopy: Prospective, preliminary comparison of accuracy

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a new endoscope that helps estimate the size of neoplasms in the gastrointestinal tract. We compared the accuracy of polyp size estimation by VSE with that of visual estimation. A dual center prospective study was conducted in two Japanese academic endoscopy units. Ten endoscopists (five trainees and five experts) estimated the size of 20 simulated polyps in four colon phantoms during colonoscopy by two methods: conventional visual estimation and estimation by VSE. The primary endpoint was the relative accuracy in relation to true polyp size according to visual estimation and VSE estimation during colonoscopy. The secondary endpoint was the required time (the time needed to measure in each procedure). The mean values of the primary end-point were 62.5% for visual estimation and 84.0% for VSE estimation; hence the result differed significantly (95% confidence interval 18.3-24.7; P < 0.001). The mean of required times was significantly longer for estimation by VSE (6.4 min) than that by visual estimation (2.9 min; P < 0.001). The accuracy of colorectal polyp size estimation was superior with VSE than with visual estimation during colonoscopy. In the future, VSE should be evaluated in actual clinical settings, including the time required for size estimation.

Artificial intelligence-based measurement outperforms current methods for colorectal polyp size measurement

OBJECTIVES

An accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy is crucial to determine the surveillance interval and predict the risk of malignant progression. However, there is a high degree of subjectivity in estimating polyp size among endoscopists in clinical practice. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel method that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to measure the size of colon polyps and compare it with current approaches.

METHODS

Using the W-Net model for vessel segmentation and based on retinal image datasets (DRIVE, STARE, CHASE-DB, and HRF) and colonoscopy images, we developed the bifurcation-to-bifurcation (BtoB) distance measuring method and applied it to endoscopic images. Measurements were compared with those obtained by eight endoscopists (four expert and four trainees). Diagnostic ability and reliability were evaluated using Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland-Altman analyses.

RESULTS

For both experts and trainees, visually estimated sizes of the same polyp were significantly inconsistent depending on the camera view used (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analyses showed that there was a trend toward underestimation of the sizes of the polyps in both groups, especially for polyps larger than 10 mm. The new technique was highly accurate and reliable in measuring the size of colon polyp (CCC, 0.961; confidence interval 0.926-0.979), clearly outperforming the visual estimation and open biopsy forceps methods.

CONCLUSION

The new AI measurement method improved the accuracy and reliability of polyp size measurements in colonoscopy images. Incorporating AI might be particularly important to improve the efficiency of trainees at estimating polyp size during colonoscopy.

Factors influencing endoscopic estimation of colon polyp size in a colon model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal polyps are removed to prevent progression to colorectal cancer. Polyp size is an important factor for risk stratification of malignant transformation. Endoscopic size estimation correlates poorly with pathological reports and several factors have been suggested to influence size estimation. We aimed to gain insight into the factors influencing endoscopic polyp size estimation.

METHODS

Images of polyps in an artificial model were obtained at 1, 3, and 5 cm from the colonoscope's tip. Participants were asked to estimate the diameter and volume of each polyp.

RESULTS

Fifteen endoscopists from three large-volume centers participated in this study. With an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.71) for diameter and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50-0.62) for volume. Polyp size estimated at 3 cm from the colonoscope's tip yielded the best results. A lower distance between the tip and the polyp was associated with a larger estimated polyp size.

CONCLUSION

Correct endoscopic estimation of polyp size remains challenging. This finding can affect size estimation skills and future training programs for endoscopists.

Usefulness of a Colonoscopy Cap with an External Grid for the Measurement of Small-Sized Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial. The usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy and external grid application on monitor (gCAP) was evaluated for polyp size measurement in this 3-year, single-center, single-blind, randomized trial. Using the endoscopic forceps width as reference, the discrepancy percent (DP), error rate (ER), and measurement time were compared between gCAP and visual estimation (VE) after randomization. ER was calculated within a 20% and 33% limit. From the 111 patients, 280 polyps were measured. The mean polyp sizes were 4.0 ± 1.7 mm and 4.2 ± 1.8 mm with gCAP and VE, respectively (p = 0.368). Compared with that by the forceps method, DP was significantly lower in the gCAP group than in the VE group. Moreover, ER was significantly lower in the gCAP group within its preset limit. The measurement time was 4 s longer in the gCAP group than in the VE group (8.2 ± 4.8 s vs. 4.2 ± 1.5 s; p < 0.001). However, the forceps method lasted 28 s longer than the others. On subgroup analysis by size, gCAP was more accurate for polyp size ≥ 5 mm. The gCAP method was more accurate for polyp size measurement than VE, especially for polyps ≥ 5 mm, and was more convenient than the forceps method.

Accuracy of endoscopic size measurements of early gastric signet ring cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of early gastric cancer (EGC) are expanding, but signet ring cell carcinoma (SRC) is still unclear because of its unclear boundaries. The purpose of this study was to compare pathologic size and endoscopic size in SRC-type EGC and to find risk factors associated with tumor size underestimation.

METHODS

Medical records of 137 patients diagnosed with SRC-type EGC between January 2009 and December 2016 at our tertiary hospital were reviewed. According to pathologic and endoscopic tumor sizes, they were classified into correct estimation, underestimation, and overestimation groups, and risk factors related to underestimation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 137 patients with SRC-type EGC, 77 patients (56.2%) had undergone correct estimation, 43 patients (31.4%) had undergone underestimation, and 17 patients (12.4%) had undergone overestimation. Mean pathologic size (SD) was 20.1 (13.8) mm and mean endoscopic size (SD) was 17.9 (10.1) mm, the correlation coefficients were 0.919 (p < 0.001) , and there was no significant difference between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size more than 20 mm (OR 3.419; 95% CI 1.271-9.194; p = 0.015) and atrophy (OR 6.011; 95% CI 2.311-15.633; p = 0.001) were risk factors for tumor size underestimation.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in pathologic and endoscopic size in SRC-type EGC. Therefore, ESD may be considered as a therapeutic option if the size of the tumor is less than 20 mm and atrophy is not present in the surrounding mucosa.

Accuracy of estimation of polyp size at colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Council posits that the size of adenomas is a more robust marker of risk than histological characteristics. The purpose of our study is to assess the accuracy of estimation of polyp size at colonoscopy amongst different levels of endoscopists and compare this with histopathological size.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed. Specimens were included if they were (i) from patients aged 18 years or older, (ii) polyp obtained at colonoscopy, (iii) measured in quantitative units and (iv) the largest eligible polyp per patient.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients were included. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between the histological size of a polyp and an endoscopist's estimate depended upon seniority level (P = 0.001). Senior consultants tended to overestimate lesion size (P < 0.001), fellows/junior consultants tended to underestimate size (P = 0.010), whilst registrars' estimates demonstrated no systematic difference from histological size (P = 0.518). The ratio of a senior consultant's estimate of polyp size to histological size was on average 74% with their estimates ranging from 31% to 173%. The corresponding estimates are 123% (32-470%) for fellows/junior consultants and 107% (35-334%) for registrars.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that senior consultants are more precise with more junior endoscopists having a great degree of variability in their practice. It is evident that there is a relationship between proceduralist experience and polyp size estimation. It is, therefore, important to consider the ways in which we can mitigate this learning curve and continue to develop technology to improve our accuracy.

The predictive value of small versus diminutive adenomas for subsequent advanced neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with previous colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance intervals treat all tubular adenomas 1 to 9 mm in size with low-grade dysplasia as carrying the same level of risk. We evaluated whether 6 to 9 mm adenomas detected at colonoscopy are associated with greater risk of advanced neoplasia at follow-up compared with baseline 1 to 5 mm adenomas.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a colonoscopy database at a single U.S. academic center. Patients with baseline examinations demonstrating tubular adenomas 1 to 9 mm in size with low-grade dysplasia and no advanced adenomas were included. Follow-up colonoscopies were performed at least 200 days later and were assessed for incident advanced neoplasia (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, adenoma ≥10 mm in size, or villous elements).

RESULTS

There were 2477 qualifying baseline colonoscopies. The absolute risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia increased from 3.6% in patients with 1 to 5 mm adenomas to 6.9% in patients with at least 1 adenoma of 6 to 9 mm (P = .001). Patients with 5 or more adenomas 1 of which was at least 6 to 9 mm had the highest risk of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (10.4%, P = .006). When only screening colonoscopies were considered, all baseline groups (1-2 adenomas, 3-4 adenomas, ≥5 adenomas) with adenomas 6 to 9 mm in size had an increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (odds ratio [OR], 4.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-11.04; OR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.44-16.75; OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.30-17.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with baseline small (6-9 mm) adenomas have an increased risk of advanced lesions on follow-up compared with patients with only diminutive (1-5 mm) adenomas. Postpolypectomy guidelines should consider risk stratification based on small versus diminutive adenomas.

Polyp Sizing Poster Improves Polyp Measurement but not Adenoma Detection Rates by Endoscopists in a Large Community Practice

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Accurate sizing of polyps and improving adenoma detection rates (ADR) are important goals for high-quality colonoscopy. Surveillance intervals are based on accurate sizing of polyps. There are no clinical tools or interventions that have demonstrated improvement in both these metrics. We investigated the efficacy of a simple, low-cost intervention, based on use of polyp sizing posters to improve measurements of polyps and increase ADRs during colonoscopy at a large gastroenterology community practice.

METHODS

We collected data on polyp measurements and ADRs by 62 gastrointestinal endoscopists at a large multi-site community practice, from January to November 2015 (baseline). In a prospective study, endoscopy units were given a polyp sizing poster to be hung above the endoscopy video monitor (intervention group, for 33 endoscopists) or for usual care (control group, for 29 endoscopists) in December 2015, and we collected data on polyp measurements and ADRs over the following 6 months (January-June 2016). We compared the endoscopists' assessment of polyp size and their ADRs before and after the intervention using a mixed effects proportional odds model, controlling for provider age and sex and patient and indication for colonoscopy. Our primary aim was to assess the effect of the snare and forcep-based polyp sizing poster on change in polyp size. The secondary aim was to study the effect of the polyp sizing poster on ADR.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 85,657 polyps from 38,307 colonoscopies. The characteristics of patients who underwent colonoscopy were similar between the control and intervention group (median age, 61 years; 48.1% female; 53.9% undergoing screening; 31.4% undergoing surveillance; 14.7% receiving a diagnostic colonoscopy). The endoscopists' median age was 51 years (range, 33-76) years, and 15 were women (24.2%). During the baseline period, male endoscopists were more likely to size polyps larger than measurements made by female endoscopists (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.55; P = .002). For the intervention group, 78.6% of polyps were assigned to the 1-5 mm category during the baseline period compared to 76.0% after the intervention, whereas the proportions of polyps assigned to the 6-10 mm category increased from 16.9% during the baseline period to 18.3% after the intervention. In the control group, 78.9% of polyps were assigned to the 1-5 mm category during the baseline period and 78.3% were assigned to this group in the prospective study; 16.5% of polyps were assigned to the 6-10 mm during the baseline period and 17.5% were assigned to this group in the prospective study. The interaction between intervention group and timing (baseline vs after the intervention) was statistically significant, with an increase in the odds of larger polyp sizing after the intervention (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). The odds of larger polyp measurement during the intervention period, compared to the baseline period, increased for male endoscopists (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.27; P < .001) and female endoscopists (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.36; P = .04), as well as for younger physicians (<50 years; OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not for older physicians (>50 years; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .44). The average ADR for male and female endoscopists combined during the baseline period was 42%. The change in ADR from the baseline vs the post-intervention was an increase of 2.6% in the control group compared to 5.7% in the intervention group (P = .39) CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a polyp sizing poster above the endoscopy video monitor increases the odds of polyps being assigned a larger size but does not affect ADRs.

Reproducibility and accuracy of visual estimation of polyp size in large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Previous studies indicate that visual size estimation (in situ) of polyp size tends to differ from postfixation measurements, which effects allocation to surveillance intervals. Little is known about interobserver variation of in-situ measurements of large polyps. The primary objective was to assess interobserver variation of in situ measurements of large colorectal polyps. Secondary objectives were the agreement of in situ measurements with postfixation measurements, and the agreement on detection of ≥20 mm polyps between these measurements.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Interobserver variability of in situ polyp size measurements was assessed between a diagnostic colonoscopy and the secondary therapeutic colonoscopy by dedicated endoscopists, in patients that were referred for an advanced polypectomy. After excision pre- and postfixation polyp sizes were measured with a ruler in three dimensions.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients, with 45 polyps, were included in the study. The average difference between the two in situ measurements was 2.4 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.4-5.2). The differences between the first in situ, second in situ and pre-fixation measurement in comparison to postfixation measurements were 1.8 mm (95% CI: -1.2-4.9), 0.1 mm (95% CI: -1.5-1.8) and 1.0 mm (95% CI: -0.2-2.2). Cohen's Kappa on detection of ≥20 mm polyps in agreement with postfixation measurements was 0.65 in the primary and 0.88 in the secondary in situ measurements.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a variation between in situ size measurements of large polyps. Improvements in daily clinical routines can be made by using an instrument to compare polyp size with and refraining from rounding sizes up or down. A randomized controlled trial assessing which instruments should be used for in-situ measurements of large polyps is warranted, in order to optimize size measurements of large colorectal polyps.

Variation between Pathological Measurement and Endoscopically Estimated Size of Colonic Polyps

Background and Aims

Accurate determination of colonic polyp size is vital to an appropriate surveillance. The main aim of this study was to evaluate variation between the polyp size reported by the endoscopist and its pathological measurement.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all colonic adenomatous polyps resected in a 12-month period was performed at our center. Endoscopic and pathological size for each polyp were compared, and overestimation rates, underestimation rates, and endoscopic-pathological variation (EPV) were calculated.

Results

Among the 573 polyps that were included, the mean endoscopic and pathological sizes were 8.00 and 6.66 mm, respectively. The most frequent error, in 62.1%, was overestimation by the colonoscopist. Overestimation and EPV were associated with resection technique (higher in endoscopic mucosal resection and smaller with biopsy forceps) and colonoscopist. They were not associated with years of experience in colonoscopy. Overestimation was more frequent in larger polyps.

Conclusions

Our study shows significant discordance between endoscopic and pathological size of colonic polyps with a clear tendency for endoscopic overestimation. Larger polyps are more difficult to accurately assess than smaller ones. This propensity for error was not related to colonoscopist's years of experience and seems to be an individual tendency.

Mis-sizing of Adenomatous Polyps is Common among Endoscopists and Impacts Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations

Background/Aims

To determine the accuracy of identifying ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps during colonoscopy and define its impact on subsequent interval screening.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Banner University Medical Center, Tucson from 2011 to 2015. All patients with ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps based on their colonoscopy report were included. Adenomatous polyps were excluded if they did not meet the criteria. Discrepancies in the polyp size were determined by calculating the percentage of size variation (SV). Clinical mis-sizing was defined as SV >33%.

Results

The polyps analyzed were predominantly <10 mm in size. Approximately 13% of the examined polyps met the inclusion criteria, and 40.7% of the adenomas were ≥10 mm. A total of 189 ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps were collected from 10 different gastroenterologists and a colorectal surgeon. Adenomatous polyps were clinically mis-sized in 56.6% of cases and overestimated in 71.4%. Among the adenomas reviewed, 22% of mis-sized polyps and 11% of non-mis-sized polyps resulted in an inappropriate surveillance interval.

Conclusions

We found that more than half of ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps are mis-sized and that there is a tendency to overestimate adenoma size among endoscopists. This frequently leads to inappropriate intervals of surveillance colonoscopy.

Surveillance after positive colonoscopy based on adenoma characteristics

BACKGROUND

Patients with adenomatous polyps are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer based on the characteristics and number of polyps, but less is known about the individual and combined contribution of these factors. This study aimed to better characterize the risk of advanced adenoma and cancer in patients with positive baseline colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients who had polyps at baseline colonoscopy were included in this retrospective cohort study (N=1165) and were categorized into 6 groups: (1) 1-2 non-advanced adenomas (NAA's), (2) ≥3 NAA's, (3) advanced tubular adenoma, (4) small tubulovillous adenoma (TVA), (5) large TVA and (6) multiple advanced adenomas (MAA's). Findings at surveillance colonoscopy were documented in each group.

RESULTS

The combined incidence of advanced adenoma,  ≥3 NAA's, and colorectal cancer at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly higher in the baseline large TVA (29.2%) than small TVA groups (13.5%, P<0.001), as well as in the MAA's group (44.1%) compared with large TVA group (P=0.02). The incidence of colorectal cancer, however, was not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The size of the polyp and the number of advanced lesions are more important than its histology for predicting the risk of high-risk metachronous lesions at follow-up.

Measurement Bias of Polyp Size at Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The success of current and proposed strategies to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are fundamentally based on measurement accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the densities of colorectal polyps individually measured at colonoscopy and whether measurement bias is a systemic phenomenon among colonoscopists.

DESIGN

A population-wide, observational study.

SETTING

All hospitals of the government-funded health system in Brisbane, Australia.

PATIENTS

Our study investigated measurement bias at colonoscopy through systematic analysis of 8,591 individual polyp measurements recorded from 12,597 colonoscopies. All colonoscopies performed over a 12-month period between December 1, 2014, and November 30, 2015, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 12,597 electronic colonoscopy reports were individually reviewed, hospital-by-hospital, and 8,591 individual size measurements from 18,276 detected polyps (47%) were obtained.

LIMITATIONS

Our study is limited because the true size of unresected polyps was unknown. We chose not to compare pathologic and histologic sizes as resection specimens sent to pathologists are morphologically different and are measured differently to the pre-resection polyp images seen by endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopists may be inaccurate in the measurement of polyp size and appear biased towards and against certain size measurements. These findings cast doubt over the validity of international post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines and the safety of optical diagnosis as a potential management paradigm for diminutive colorectal polyps. They also question the historical accuracy of polyp size data and risk estimates upon which these strategies were based.

Variability in, and factors associated with, sizing of polyps by endoscopists at a large community practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

 Accurate sizing of polyps at time of colonoscopy is critical for determining surveillance intervals. Endoscopists routinely over- or underestimate the size of polyps at colonoscopy. We evaluated the variability in sizing of polyps among multiple endoscopists, and the effect of patient and physician related factors on polyp size estimation in a large community-based practice.

METHODS

 Adult patients who underwent a colonoscopy with polypectomy at five endoscopy centers in Minneapolis/St. Paul by one of 52 endoscopists in 2013 were included in this study. Association of patient, physician, and procedure related factors on polyp sizing was assessed.

RESULTS

 In the study time frame, 38 624 colonoscopies were performed at five ambulatory endoscopy centers. Of these, 16 336 had one or more polyp removed with size information available, and were included in this analysis. There was significant inter-physician variation for estimating polyp sizes larger than 5 mm (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.13). Older patient age (OR 1.08, 95 %CI 1.06 - 1.11), and male physician gender (OR 1.92, 95 %CI 1.26 - 2.94) were associated with increased odds of physicians sizing polyps as larger in size. Surveillance procedures had a higher odds of larger polyp sizing compared to screening (OR 0.91, 95 %CI 0.86 - 0.97) and diagnostic procedures (OR 0.86, 95 %CI 0.78 - 0.94).

CONCLUSION

 In a large community setting, variation of polyp sizing estimates exists between physicians. Male physicians were more likely to size polyps as larger in size. Older patients and patients undergoing surveillance procedures were more likely to have polyps that were sized as larger in size.

Colon adenoma features and their impact on risk of future advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer

AIM

To review the evidence on the association between specific colon adenoma features and the risk of future colonic neoplasia [adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC)].

METHODS

We performed a literature search using the National Library of Medicine through PubMed from 1/1/2003 to 5/30/2015. Specific Medical Subject Headings terms (colon, colon polyps, adenomatous polyps, epidemiology, natural history, growth, cancer screening, colonoscopy, CRC) were used in conjunction with subject headings/key words (surveillance, adenoma surveillance, polypectomy surveillance, and serrated adenoma). We defined non-advanced adenomas as 1-2 adenomas each < 10 mm in size and advanced adenomas as any adenoma ≥ 10 mm size or with > 25% villous histology or high-grade dysplasia. A combined endpoint of advanced neoplasia included advanced adenomas and invasive CRC.

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 592 candidate articles of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were relevant for assessment of histology (low grade vs high grade dysplasia, villous features) and adenoma size. Six of these studies met the accepted quality indicator threshold for overall adenoma detection rate > 25% among study patients. We found 254 articles of which 7 met inclusion criteria for the evaluation of multiple adenomas. Lastly, our search revealed 222 candidate articles of which 6 met inclusion criteria for evaluation of serrated polyps. Our review found that villous features, high grade dysplasia, larger adenoma size, and having ≥ 3 adenomas at baseline are associated with an increased risk of future colonic neoplasia in some but not all studies. Serrated polyps in the proximal colon are associated with an increased risk of future colonic neoplasia, comparable to having a baseline advanced adenoma.

CONCLUSION

Data on adenoma features and risk of future adenomas and CRC are compelling yet modest in absolute effect size. Future research should refine this risk stratification.

A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare endoscopy and pathology sizing in a large population-based series of colorectal adenomas and to evaluate the implications for patient stratification into surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

Endoscopy and pathology sizes available from intact adenomas removed at colonoscopies performed as part of the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, from 2010 to 2015, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests were applied to compare size categories in relation to clinicopathologic parameters and colonoscopy surveillance strata according to current American Gastroenterology Association and British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 2521 adenomas from 1467 individuals were included. There was a trend toward larger endoscopy than pathology sizing in 4 of the 5 study centers, but overall sizing concordance was good. Significantly greater clustering with sizing to the nearest 5 mm was evident in endoscopy versus pathology sizing (30% vs 19%, P < .001), which may result in lower accuracy. Applying a 10-mm cut-off relevant to guidelines on risk stratification, 7.3% of all adenomas and 28.3% of those 8 to 12 mm in size had discordant endoscopy and pathology size categorization. Depending on which guidelines are applied, 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals had differing risk stratification for surveillance recommendations, with the use of pathology sizing resulting in marginally fewer recommended surveillance colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of pathology or endoscopy approaches to determine adenoma size will potentially influence surveillance colonoscopy follow-up in 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals. Pathology sizing appears more accurate than endoscopy sizing, and preferential use of pathology size would result in a small, but clinically important, decreased burden on surveillance colonoscopy demand. Careful endoscopy sizing is required for adenomas removed piecemeal.

Use of a novel polyp "ruler snare" improves estimation of colon polyp size

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prior studies have demonstrated that endoscopists' estimates of polyp size are imprecise. The aim of this study was to determine whether a modified polypectomy "ruler snare" improves the accuracy of assessment of polyp size in real time without the use of additional devices.

METHODS

Ten artificial polyps of predetermined sizes (4 to 25 mm) were affixed to the inside of a colon model. A standard polypectomy snare was modified by adding 5-mm graduated markings to the distal end of the plastic sheath. Study participants estimated the sizes of the artificial polyps during simulated colonoscopies, first using a standard snare and then with the modified ruler snare.

RESULTS

Thirty-four private practice and academic gastroenterologists participated in the study. Endoscopists' ability to accurately classify polyps by size (diminutive, small, or large) improved from 48.5% to 60.3% with the ruler snare (P = .002). The greatest improvement in precision was seen among the large polyps, where accuracy increased from 35.9% to 58.2% with use of the ruler snare (P < .0001). Participants underestimated polyp size by a mean of 3.6 mm (interquartile range, -5 to -2 mm) with the standard snare and 1.8 mm (interquartile range, -3 to 0 mm) with the ruler snare, which corresponded to a 44.2% improvement in accuracy with the ruler snare (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified ruler snare improved polyp size assessment compared with a standard snare, particularly with large polyps. Overall, although size estimation continues to be imprecise, the addition of calibrated markings to a polypectomy snare is a simple and likely low-cost means to improve neoplasia surveillance recommendations.

Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polyp size ≥ 1 cm triggers more frequent colonoscopic surveillance, yet size is typically based on subjective endoscopic estimates. We sought to compare contemporary assessments of polyp size by endoscopic estimation and pathology measurement.

METHODS

Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from the 2012 medical records at a large institution. Only polyps resected in toto with both endoscopic estimates and pathology measurements were included. Pathology measurements were considered the criterion standard. Factors affecting endoscopic miscall rates were assessed by multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

From 6067 polyps resected, both endoscopic and pathology sizes were available on 1528. Distribution of polyp size appraised by endoscopy but not by pathology revealed modal clustering, particularly around 1 cm. Among 99 polyps endoscopically called 1 cm, 72% were <1 cm on pathology. Of all 222 polyps estimated as ≥ 1 cm on endoscopy, 46% were <1 cm on pathology; of 1306 polyps estimated as <1 cm, 3.9% were ≥ 1 cm on pathology. By histology, 39% of adenomatous, 59% of sessile serrated, and 73% of hyperplastic polyps were overcalled; P = .008. By configuration, 34% of pedunculated, 49% of sessile, and 61% of flat polyps were overcalled; P = .014. Endoscopic overestimation was more common in women (54%) than in men (40%) (P = .03) and with proximal (56%) than distal (40%) sites; P = .02. Miscall rates were unaffected by endoscopist covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial discordance exists between endoscopic and pathology-based assessments of polyp size. Almost half of polyps called advanced on endoscopic estimates of size ≥ 1 cm fell below this threshold on actual pathology measurements.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Computer vision and augmented reality in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Augmented reality (AR) is an environment-enhancing technology, widely applied in the computer sciences, which has only recently begun to permeate the medical field. Gastrointestinal endoscopy—which relies on the integration of high-definition video data with pathologic correlates—requires endoscopists to assimilate and process a tremendous amount of data in real time. We believe that AR is well positioned to provide computer-guided assistance with a wide variety of endoscopic applications, beginning with polyp detection. In this article, we review the principles of AR, describe its potential integration into an endoscopy set-up, and envisage a series of novel uses. With close collaboration between physicians and computer scientists, AR promises to contribute significant improvements to the field of endoscopy.

Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards?

BACKGROUND

Standards for the detection of adenomas during screening colonoscopy are widely used to measure examination quality. No such standards exist for sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs).

OBJECTIVE

To measure both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and SSA detection rate (SSADR) during screening colonoscopy before and after quality improvement/financial incentive measures.

DESIGN

Retrospective determination of baseline ADR/SSADR by the endoscopist, followed by prospective collection of data after informing physicians of baseline detection rates.

SETTING

Tertiary cancer center with a large cancer screening program.

PATIENTS

A total of 2833 average-risk colorectal cancer screening patients 50 to 75 years of age undergoing initial colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION

Electronic medical records for indication and demographics, endoscopy report, and pathology report.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Detection rates of adenomas and SSAs by sex.

RESULTS

The overall ADR in male and female patients was 50.6% and 36.6%, respectively. The overall detection rate of advanced adenomas in male and female patients was 12.4% and 6.5%, respectively. The overall SSADR in male and female patients was 10.1% and 7.1%, respectively. In 108 patients (3.8% of entire group), SSAs were the only premalignant lesions found. Detection rates of both types of premalignant polyps improved over time but did not reach statistical significance.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center experience with limited sample size and small group of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

ADRs far in excess of current standards are achievable. Cecal withdrawal time is associated with the ADR. Prevalence of SSA rivals that of advanced adenomas and is greater than current medical literature suggests. The combination of monitoring and financial incentives did not result in statistically significant improvement in ADRs.

Measurement system that improves the accuracy of polyp size determined at colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the accuracy of polyp size using an endoscopic lesion measurement system (ELMS).

METHODS: The accuracy of polyp size assessment was compared among measurements acquired by visual estimation, disposable graduated biopsy forceps (DGBF; used as a “scale-plate”) and the ELMS.

RESULTS: There were 192 polyps from 166 cases included in this study. The mean diameter of the post polypectomy measurement was 0.85 ± 0.53 cm (range: 0.2-3.0 cm). The mean diameter by visual estimation was 1.10 ± 0.53 cm, which was significantly different compared to the actual size of the polyp (P < 0.001). The mean diameters obtained using DGBF (0.87 ± 0.54 cm) and ELMS (0.85 ± 0.53 cm) did not significantly differ from the actual size of the polyp. The difference between the measurements from the ELMS and DGBF was not significant.

CONCLUSION: Unlike visual estimations at colonoscopy, endoscopic graduated biopsy forceps and the endoscopic lesion measurement system are accurate methods to estimate polyp size.

Use of disposable graduated biopsy forceps improves accuracy of polyp size measurements during endoscopy

AIM: To determine the accuracy of endoscopic polyp size measurements using disposable graduated biopsy forceps (DGBF).

METHODS: Gradations accurate to 1 mm were assessed with the wire of disposable graduated biopsy forceps. When a polyp was noted, endoscopists determined the width of the polyp; then, the graduated biopsy forceps was inserted and the largest diameter of the tumor was measured. After excision, during surgery or endoscopy, the polyp was measured using the vernier caliper.

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-three colorectal polyps from 119 patients were studied. The mean diameter, by post-polypectomy measurement, was 0.92 ± 0.69 cm; 83 were < 1 cm, 36 were between 1 and 2 cm, and 14 were > 2 cm. The mean diameter, by visual estimation, was 1.15 ± 0.88 cm; compared to the actual size measured using vernier calipers, the difference was statistically significant. The mean diameter measured using the DGBF was 0.93 ± 0.68 cm; compared to the actual size measured using vernier calipers, this difference was not statistically significant. The ratio between the mean size estimated by visual estimation and the actual size was significantly different from that between the mean size estimated using the DGBF and the actual size (1.26 ± 0.30 vs 1.02 ± 0.11).

CONCLUSION: The accuracy of polyp size estimation was low by visual assessment; however, it improved when the DGBF was used.

Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Understanding colonoscopy utilization and outcomes can help determine when the procedure is most effective.

OBJECTIVE

To study trends in utilization and outcomes of colonoscopy in the United States from 2000 to 2011.

DESIGN

Prospective collection of colonoscopy data.

SETTING

A total of 84 adult diverse GI practices.

PATIENTS

All adult patients receiving colonoscopy for any reason.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Polyps >9 mm or suspected malignant tumor.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,372,838 reports. The most common reason for colonoscopy in patients aged <50 years is evaluation of symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (28.7%) and bleeding or anemia (35.3%). In patients aged 50 to 74 years, colorectal cancer screening accounts for 42.9% of examinations. In patients aged >74 years, surveillance for cancer or polyps is the most common indication. The use of colonoscopy for average-risk screening increased nearly 3-fold during the study period. The prevalence of large polyps increases with age and is higher in men for every procedure indication. The prevalence of large polyps in patients with symptoms of IBS was lower than in those undergoing average-risk screening (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.87). With increasing age, there was a shift from distal to proximal large polyps. The rate of proximal large polyps is higher in the black population compared with the white population (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.25).

LIMITATIONS

In the absence of pathology data, use of surrogate as the main outcome.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy utilization changed from 2000 to 2011, with an increase in primary screening. The proximal location of large polyps in the black population and with advancing age has implications for screening and surveillance.

Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate

OBJECTIVES

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the accepted rate marker in colonoscopy quality. Advanced adenomas detected at index colonoscopy, while less frequent than nonadvanced adenomas, carry greater risk for future advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. This study aimed to determine the effect of the colonoscopist and other factors on advanced ADR and to define the correlation of advanced and nonadvanced ADRs among colonoscopists.

METHODS

An observational study of a cohort of patients undergoing first-time colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy was conducted. Patient characteristics and colonoscopic findings were collected. Adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonadvanced ADRs were calculated. Logistic regression was used to determine variable effects on advanced adenoma detection, and Spearman's rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between advanced and nonadvanced ADRs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,944 patients had first-time screening colonoscopies by 14 colonoscopists. All colonoscopists had adequate (>20%) ADRs. The variability in the colonoscopist ranges of detection was 22.22 to 44.66% for adenomas and 2.00 to 18.18% for advanced adenomas. Logistic regression showed that increasing patient age (odds ratio (OR) 1.16 per 5-year increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.28, P=0.008) and male gender (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.51-3.06, P<0.0001) were variables associated with advanced adenoma detection. Colonoscopists were significantly different in detecting advanced adenomas by random effects model (P=0.002), adjusting for patient age, gender, race, year of colonoscopy, gastroenterology fellow participation during colonoscopy, and nonadvanced adenomas. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient of -0.42 (95% CI -0.77 to 0.14, P=0.13) was not significant and showed no correlation between advanced and nonadvanced adenoma detection by the group of colonoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced ADR is variable among colonoscopists with acceptable ADRs. Colonoscopists' advanced ADRs are independent of their nonadvanced ADRs.