Photodocumentation in colonoscopy: the need to do better?

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection.

METHODS

A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round.

RESULTS

A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Implementation of optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy in clinical practice: DISCARD3 study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Optical diagnosis (OD) of polyps can be performed with advanced endoscopic imaging. For high-confidence diagnoses, a "resect and discard" strategy could offer significant histopathology time and cost savings. The implementation threshold is a ≥90% OD-histology surveillance interval concordance. Here we assessed the OD learning curve and feasibility of a resect and discard strategy for ≤5-mm and <10-mm polyps in a bowel cancer screening setting.

METHODS

In this prospective feasibility study, 8 bowel cancer screening endoscopists completed a validated OD training module and performed procedures. All <10-mm consecutive polyps had white-light and narrow-band images taken and were given high- or low-confidence diagnoses until 120 high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp diagnoses had been performed. All polyps had standard histology. High-confidence OD errors underwent root-cause analysis. Histology and OD-derived surveillance intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 565 invited patients, 525 patients were included. A total of 1560 <10-mm polyps underwent OD and were resected and retrieved (1329 ≤5 mm and 231 6-9 mm). There were no <10-mm polyp cancers. High-confidence OD was accurate in 81.5% of ≤5-mm and 92.8% of 6-9-mm polyps. Sensitivity for OD of a ≤5-mm adenoma was 93.0% with a positive predictive value of 90.8%. OD-histology surveillance interval concordance for ≤5-mm OD was 91.3% (209/229) for U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, 98.3% (225/229) for European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and 98.7% (226/229) for British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A resect and discard strategy for high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp OD in a group of bowel cancer screening colonoscopists is feasible and safe, with performance exceeding the 90% surveillance interval concordance required for implementation in clinical practice. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04710693.).

Validation of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) cases reported at national level following local root cause analysis: REFLECT study

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre.

DESIGN/METHOD

A subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible.

RESULTS

Of 107 'PCCRC' cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 'PCCRC' cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate' (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58).

CONCLUSION

Our single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.