The location-based resect and discard strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical implementation of the resect-and-discard strategy has been difficult because optical diagnosis is highly operator dependent. This prospective study aimed to evaluate a resect-and-discard strategy that is not operator dependent. METHODS: The study evaluated a resect-and-discard strategy that uses the anatomical polyp location to classify colonic polyps into non-neoplastic or low risk neoplastic. All rectosigmoid diminutive polyps were considered hyperplastic and all polyps located proximally to the sigmoid colon were considered neoplastic. Surveillance interval assignments based on these a priori assumptions were compared with those based on actual pathology results and on optical diagnosis. The primary outcome was ≥ 90 % agreement with pathology in surveillance interval assignment. RESULTS: 1117 patients undergoing complete colonoscopy were included and 482 (43.1 %) had at least one diminutive polyp. Surveillance interval agreement between the location-based strategy and pathological findings using the 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force guideline was 97.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.98), surpassing the ≥ 90 % benchmark. Optical diagnoses using the NICE and Sano classifications reached 89.1 % and 90.01 % agreement, respectively (P < 0.001), and were inferior to the location-based strategy. The location-based resect-and-discard strategy allowed a 69.7 % (95 %CI 0.67-0.72) reduction in pathology examinations compared with 55.3 % (95 %CI 0.52-0.58; NICE and Sano) and 41.9 % (95 %CI 0.39-0.45; WASP) with optical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The location-based resect-and-discard strategy achieved very high surveillance interval agreement with pathology-based surveillance interval assignment, surpassing the ≥ 90 % benchmark and outperforming optical diagnosis in surveillance interval agreement and the number of pathology examinations avoided.

Evaluation of the polyp-based resect and discard strategy: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Standard colonoscopy practice requires removal and histological characterization of almost all detected small (< 10 mm) and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps. This study aimed to test a simplified polyp-based resect and discard (PBRD) strategy that assigns surveillance intervals based only on size and number of small/diminutive polyps, without the need for pathology examination. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed on patients enrolled in a prospective study. The primary outcome was surveillance interval agreement of the PBRD strategy with pathology-based management according to 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force guidelines. Chart analysis also evaluated clinician adherence to pathology-based recommendations. One-sided testing was performed with a null-hypothesis of 90 % agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals and a two-sided 96.7 % confidence interval (CI) using correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: 452 patients were included in the study. Surveillance intervals assigned using the PBRD strategy were correct in 97.8 % (96.7 %CI 96.3-99.3 %) of patients compared with pathology-based management. The PBRD strategy reduced pathology examinations by 58.7 % while providing 87.8 % of patients with immediate surveillance interval recommendations on the day of colonoscopy, compared with 47.1 % when using pathology-based management. Chart analysis of surveillance interval assignments showed 63.3 % adherence to pathology-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: The PBRD strategy surpassed the 90 % agreement with the pathology-based standard for determining surveillance interval, reduced the need for pathology examinations, and increased the proportion of patients receiving immediate surveillance interval recommendations. The PBRD strategy does not require expertise in optical diagnosis and may replace histological characterization of small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm. RESULTS: We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.

Clinical validation of the SIMPLE classification for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps.

Background and study aims A novel endoscopic optical diagnosis classification system (SIMPLE) has recently been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the SIMPLE classification in a clinical cohort. Patients and methods All diminutive and small colorectal polyps found in a cohort of individuals undergoing screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopies underwent optical diagnosis using image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) and the SIMPLE classification. The primary outcome was the agreement of surveillance intervals determined by optical diagnosis compared with pathology-based results for diminutive polyps. Secondary outcomes included the negative predictive value (NPV) for rectosigmoid adenomas, the percentage of pathology exams avoided, and the percentage of immediate surveillance interval recommendations. Analysis of optical diagnosis for polyps ≤ 10 mm was also performed. Results 399 patients (median age 62.6 years; 55.6 % female) were enrolled. For patients with at least one polyp ≤ 5 mm undergoing optical diagnosis, agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals was 93.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 91.4-95.6). The NPV for rectosigmoid adenomas was 86.7 % (95 %CI 77.5-93.2). When using optical diagnosis, pathology analysis could be avoided in 61.5 % (95 %CI 56.9-66.2) of diminutive polyps, and post-colonoscopy surveillance intervals could be given immediately to 70.9 % (95 %CI 66.5-75.4) of patients. For patients with at least one ≤ 10 mm polyp, agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals was 92.7 % (95 %CI 89.7-95.1). NPV for rectosigmoid adenomas ≤ 10 mm was 85.1 % (95 %CI CI 76.3-91.6). Conclusions IEE with the SIMPLE classification achieved the quality benchmark for the resect and discard strategy; however, the NPV for rectosigmoid polyps requires improvement.

Endoscopic and Histopathological Findings of the Esophagus, Stomach, and Duodenum in Patients with Crohn's Disease from a Reference Center in Bahia, Brazil.

(1) The aim of the present study was to describe the endoscopic and histopathological findings in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum in patients with Crohn's disease. (2) Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that included patients receiving treatment from the inflammatory bowel disease outpatient clinic. Esophagogastroduodenoscopies with biopsies of the stomach and proximal duodenum were performed. Presence of Helicobacter pylori bacteria was assessed by Giemsa staining. (3) Results: We included 58 patients. Erosive esophagitis was identified in 25 patients (43.1%), gastritis was diagnosed in 32 patients (55.2%) and erosive duodenitis was found in eight (13.8%). The most frequent histopathological finding in the H. pylori-positive group was increased inflammatory activity in the gastric body and antrum, with a predominance of mononuclear and polymorphonuclear cells. In turn, the most frequent finding in the H. pylori-negative group was chronic inflammation with predominance of mononuclear cells. Focally enhanced gastritis was identified in four patients (6.9%), all of whom were negative for H. pylori. Granulomas were not observed. H. pylori infection was present in 19 patients (32.8%). (4) Conclusions: Nonspecific endoscopic and histological findings were frequent in patients with Crohn's disease. Focally enhanced gastritis was uncommon and observed only in H. pylori-negative patients. The time from the diagnosis, patient age, and therapy in use may have influenced the nondetection of epithelioid granuloma.