Endoscopic imaging techniques for detecting early colorectal cancer

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

How to avoid overtreatment of benign colorectal lesions: Rationale for an evidence-based management

Implementing population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer has led to an increase in the detection of large but benign histological lesions. Currently, endoscopic mucosal resection can be considered the standard technique for the removal of benign lesions of the colon due to its excellent safety profile and good clinical results. However, several studies from different geographic areas agree that many benign colon lesions are still referred for surgery. Moreover, the referral rate to surgery is not decreasing over the years, despite the theoretical improvement of endoscopic resection techniques. This article will review the leading causes for benign colorectal lesions to be referred for surgery and the influence of the endoscopist experience on the referral rate. It will also describe how to categorize a polyp as complex for resection and consider an endoscopist as an expert in endoscopic resection. And finally, we will propose a framework for the accurate and evidence-based treatment of complex benign colorectal lesions.

Real-time, computer-aided, detection-assisted colonoscopy eliminates differences in adenoma detection rate between trainee and experienced endoscopists

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs). Patients and methods  We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed. Results  ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference ( P  > 0.05) between the two categories of operators. Conclusions  In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

Colorectal malignant polyps: a modern approach

Colorectal malignant polyps (MP) are polyps with invasive cancer into the submucosa harboring a variable risk of lymph node involvement, which can be estimated through evaluation of morphological, endoscopic, and histologic features. The recent advances in imaging endoscopic techniques have led to the possibility of performing an optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer, allowing the selection of the best therapeutic modality to optimize outcomes for the patient. When MP are diagnosed after endoscopic removal, their management can be challenging. Differentiating low- and high-risk histologic features that influence the possibility of residual tumor, the risk of recurrence and the risk of lymph node metastasis, is crucial to further optimize treatment and surveillance plans. While the presence of high-risk features indicates a need for surgery in the majority of cases, location, comorbidities and the patient’s preference should be taken in account when making the final decision. This is a particularly important issue in the management of low rectal MP presenting with high-risk features, where chemoradiotherapy followed by a watch-and-wait strategy has demonstrated promising results. In this review we discuss the important prognostic features of MP and the most modern approaches regarding their management.

Compound Endoscopic Morphological Features for Identifying Non-Pedunculated Lesions ≥20 mm with Intramucosal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND

The major limitation of piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the inaccurate histological assessment of the resected specimen, especially in cases of submucosal invasion.

OBJECTIVE

To classify non-pedunculated lesions ≥20 mm based on endoscopic morphological features, in order to identify those that present intramucosal neoplasia (includes low-grade neoplasia and high-grade neoplasia) and are suitable for piecemeal EMR.

DESIGN

A post-hoc analysis from an observational prospective multicentre study conducted by 58 endoscopists at 17 academic and community hospitals was performed. Unbiased conditional inference trees (CTREE) were fitted to analyse the association between intramucosal neoplasia and the lesions' endoscopic characteristics.

RESULT

542 lesions from 517 patients were included in the analysis. Intramucosal neoplasia was present in 484 of 542 (89.3%) lesions. A conditional inference tree including all lesions' characteristics assessed with white light imaging and narrow-band imaging (NBI) found that ulceration, pseudodepressed type and sessile morphology changed the accuracy for predicting intramucosal neoplasia. In ulcerated lesions, the probability of intramucosal neoplasia was 25% (95%CI: 8.3-52.6%; p < 0.001). In non-ulcerated lesions, its probability in lateral spreading lesions (LST) non-granular (NG) pseudodepressed-type lesions rose to 64.0% (95%CI: 42.6-81.3%; p < 0.001). Sessile morphology also raised the probability of intramucosal neoplasia to 86.3% (95%CI: 80.2-90.7%; p < 0.001). In the remaining 319 (58.9%) non-ulcerated lesions that were of the LST-granular (G) homogeneous type, LST-G nodular-mixed type, and LST-NG flat elevated morphology, the probability of intramucosal neoplasia was 96.2% (95%CI: 93.5-97.8%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Non-ulcerated LST-G type and LST-NG flat elevated lesions are the most common non-pedunculated lesions ≥20 mm and are associated with a high probability of intramucosal neoplasia. This means that they are good candidates for piecemeal EMR. In the remaining lesions, further diagnostic techniques like magnification or diagnostic +/- therapeutic endoscopic submucosal dissection should be considered.

Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the nice and kudo classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a comparative study

PURPOSE

For superficial colonic lesions, the NICE and Kudo classifications are used in the in vivo prediction of histology and as guide to therapy. The NICE system derives information from unmagnified NBI endoscopic images. The Kudo one necessitates a magnification, but, as this tool is not commonly available, it is applied also to characterize unmagnified pictures to compare their diagnostic performances.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective comparison of the NICE versus the Kudo classification for the differential diagnosis of colonic polyps taking histology as the gold standard. The inter-observer agreement for both classifications among 11 colonoscopists was also evaluated. Short unmagnified NBI videoclips of 64 colonic polyps were sent twice to the participants. In the first round, they classified the lesions according to the NICE classification; 4 months later, the same videos were assessed with the Kudo system. The diagnosis provided by the participants was grouped in non-neoplastic, non-invasive neoplasia, invasive neoplasia.

RESULTS

Overall, the diagnostic accuracy was 82% (95%CI: 79-85) with the NICE system and 81% (95%CI: 78-84) with the Kudo one (ρ = 0.78). The accuracy of the NICE classification for non-neoplastic lesions was greater compared with the Kudo's (ρ = 0.03). Sensitivity sub-analyses revealed a higher ability of the NICE in distinguishing between neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic lesions (ρ = 0.01). The overall inter-rater agreement did not differ when the classifications were compared.

CONCLUSION

The NICE and the Kudo classifications might be considered comparable. Our data could allow the use of the NBI Kudo classification even in those centers where magnification is not available.

Interobserver agreement of the Paris and simplified classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a Western study

Background and study aims  The Paris classification of superficial colonic lesions has been widely adopted, but a simplified description that subgroups the shape into pedunculated, sessile/flat and depressed lesions has been proposed recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and inter-rater agreement among 13 Western endoscopists for the two classification systems. Methods  Seventy video clips of superficial colonic lesions were classified according to the two classifications, and their size estimated. The interobserver agreement for each classification was assessed using both Cohen k and AC1 statistics. Accuracy was taken as the concordance between the standard morphology definition and that made by participants. Sensitivity analyses investigated agreement between trainees (T) and staff members (SM), simple or mixed lesions, distinct lesion phenotypes, and for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Results  Overall, the interobserver agreement for the Paris classification was substantial (κ = 0.61; AC1 = 0.66), with 79.3 % accuracy. Between SM and T, the values were superimposable. For size estimation, the agreement was 0.48 by the κ-value, and 0.50 by AC1. For single or mixed lesions, κ-values were 0.60 and 0.43, respectively; corresponding AC1 values were 0.68 and 0.57. Evaluating the several different polyp subtypes separately, agreement differed significantly when analyzed by the k-statistics (0.08-0.12) or the AC1 statistics (0.59-0.71). Analyses of LSTs provided a κ-value of 0.50 and an AC1 score of 0.62, with 77.6 % accuracy. The simplified classification outperformed the Paris classification: κ = 0.68, AC1 = 0.82, accuracy = 91.6 %. Conclusions  Agreement is often measured with Cohen's κ, but we documented higher levels of agreement when analyzed with the AC1 statistic. The level of agreement was substantial for the Paris classification, and almost perfect for the simplified system.