Accuracy for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Optical diagnostic involves predicting polyp histopathology from its endoscopic characteristics. It is only recommended for diminutive polyps ( < or = 5 mm) and for predictions made with high confidence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of optical imaging in clinical practice and to assess if optical diagnosis is useful for predicting future colonoscopy surveillance intervals without waiting for histopathological analysis. METHODS: consecutive > 18 years patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Colonoscopies were performed by five expert endoscopists who previously participated in an ex-vivo training. Colonoscopes CF-H180AL and CF-Q180AL were used together with Exera II (Olympus Medical System, Tokyo, Japan) processors. Each polyp was characterized in real time using white light and Narrow Band Imaging. Accuracy of optical diagnosis (S, E, NPV, PPV) and correlation between surveillance interval based on optical diagnosis and histopathological analysis were calculated. RESULTS: 311 colon polyps < 10 mm (216 diminutive) in 195 patients were analyzed. Accuracy of optical diagnostics for predictions made with high confidence: Diminutive polyps(sensitivity 0.59, specificity 0.92, NPV 0.48); polyps < 10 mm (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.88, NPV 0.50). An optical diagnosis based surveillance recommendation was given to 90 patients. Concordance with histopathology based recommendation was 92.2% according to the European guideline and 93.3% according to the ESGE guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Optical diagnostics can be used to predict future surveillance intervals immediately after colonoscopy. However, in this study, based on clinical practice, the accuracy of optical imaging is below the recommended standards.

Does "responsive insertion technology" improve practice of colonoscopy? Results of a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE. During colonoscopy, advancing the endoscope can sometimes be difficult due to the appearance of loops or bends in the insertion tube. Therefore, research continues toward improving colonoscope technology. The aim of this study is to compare the use of colonoscopes equipped with "responsive insertion technology" (RIT) versus regular non-RIT colonoscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Prospective, comparative and randomized trials that included patients submitted to colonoscopy. In group I, RIT colonoscopes were used, while in group II, colonoscopies with variable stiffness but without the other components of the RIT technology were used. Demographic variables and variables related to colonoscopy, as well as the pain perceived by the patient and the difficulty in performing endoscopy were recorded. RESULTS. A total of 122 patients were included in group I and 120 patients in group II. The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups. The use of the RIT colonoscopes was associated with a lower cecal intubation time (4.4 ± 2.0 vs. 5.4 ± 3.5, p = 0.005) and a lower difficulty in performing examinations for both the endoscopist (19.1 ± 20.0 vs. 27.7 ± 22.2, p = 0.002) and the nursing staff (20.8 ± 17.0 vs. 26.3 ± 19.6, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between both groups in the need for ancillary maneuvers or in the pain perceived by the patient. CONCLUSIONS. RIT colonoscopes allow cecal intubation in a shorter time compared to variable stiffness colonoscopes, and are associated with a greater level of ease of the procedure.