Autonomous Artificial Intelligence vs Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Human Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based optical diagnosis systems (CADx) have been developed to allow pathology prediction of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies. However, CADx systems have not yet been validated for autonomous performance. Therefore, we conducted a trial comparing autonomous AI to AI-assisted human (AI-H) optical diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial of patients undergoing elective colonoscopies at 1 academic institution. Patients were randomized into (1) autonomous AI-based CADx optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps without human input or (2) diagnosis by endoscopists who performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps after seeing the real-time CADx diagnosis. The primary outcome was accuracy in optical diagnosis in both arms using pathology as the gold standard. Secondary outcomes included agreement with pathology for surveillance intervals. RESULTS: A total of 467 patients were randomized (238 patients/158 polyps in the autonomous AI group and 229 patients/179 polyps in the AI-H group). Accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 72.1% (95% CI, 65.5-78.6) in the AI-H group (P = .86). For high-confidence diagnoses, accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 75.5% (95% CI, 67.9-82.0) in the AI-H group. Autonomous AI had statistically significantly higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals compared to AI-H (91.5% [95% CI, 86.9-96.1] vs 82.1% [95% CI, 76.5-87.7]; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Autonomous AI-based optical diagnosis exhibits noninferior accuracy to endoscopist-based diagnosis. Both autonomous AI and AI-H exhibited relatively low accuracy for optical diagnosis; however, autonomous AI achieved higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT05236790).

Using Computer-aided Optical Diagnosis and Expert Review to Evaluate Colorectal Polyps Diagnosed as Normal Mucosa in Pathology.

Pathological assessment of colorectal polyps is considered the current reference standard for histologic diagnosis. About 10% of polyps sent to the pathology lab are returned with the diagnosis of mucosal folds, mucosal prolapse, or normal mucosa.1,2 Two recent publications have indicated that disagreements between endoscopic optical diagnosis and the subsequent pathological diagnoses might be due to misdiagnosis in pathology.3,4 We were therefore interested in re-evaluating pathology-based diagnosis of "mucosal polyps" using expert endoscopists and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) evaluation.

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.

Local recurrence rates after resection of large colorectal serrated lesions with or without margin thermal ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Serrated lesions (SLs) including traditional serrated adenomas (TSA), large hyperplastic polyps (HP) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are associated with high incomplete resection rates. Margin ablation combined with EMR (EMR-T) has become routine to reduce local recurrence while cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is becoming recognized as equally effective for large SLs. Our aim was to evaluate local recurrence rates (LRR) and the use of margin ablation in preventing recurrence in a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of ≥15 mm colorectal SLs from 2010-2022 were identified through a pathology database and electronic medical records search. Hereditary CRC syndromes, first follow-up > 18 months or no follow-up, surgical resection were excluded. Primary outcome was LRRs (either histologic or visual) during the first 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were LRRs according to size, and resection technique. RESULTS: 191 polyps in 170 patients were resected (59.8% women; mean age, 65 years). The mean size of polyps was 22.4 mm, with 107 (56.0%) ≥20 mm. 99 polyps were resected with EMR, 39 with EMR-T, and 26 with CSP. Mean first surveillance was 8.2 mo. Overall LRR was 18.8% (36/191) (16.8% for ≥20 mm, 17.9% for ≥30 mm). LRR was significantly lower after EMR-T when compared with EMR (5.1% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.013) or CSP (5.1% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.031). There was no difference in LRR between EMR without margin ablation and CSP (p = 0.987). CONCLUSION: The local recurrence rate for SLs ≥15 mm is high with 18.8% overall recurrence. EMR with thermal ablation of the margins is superior to both no ablation and CSP in reducing LRRs.

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Serrated Polyps in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Indicate a Similar Risk of Metachronous Colorectal Neoplasia as in the General Population.

BACKGROUND: The risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia after diagnosing serrated polyps in patients with IBD is poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between 2010 and 2019 at three tertiary centers in Montreal, Canada. From pathology databases, we identified 1587 consecutive patients with serrated polyps (sessile serrated lesion, traditional serrated adenoma, or serrated epithelial change). We included patients aged 45-74 and excluded patients with polyposis, colorectal cancer, or no follow-up. The primary outcome was the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia (advanced adenoma, advanced serrated lesion, or colorectal cancer) after index serrated polyp, comparing patients with and without IBD. RESULTS: 477 patients with serrated polyps were eligible (mean age 61 years): 37 with IBD, totaling 45 serrated polyps and 440 without IBD, totaling 586 serrated polyps. The median follow-up was 3.4 years. There was no difference in metachronous advanced neoplasia (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.84), metachronous advanced adenoma (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.11-2.67), and metachronous advanced serrated lesion (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.26-2.18) risk. When comparing serrated polyps in mucosa involved or uninvolved with IBD, both groups had similar intervals from IBD to serrated polyp diagnosis (p > 0.05), maximal therapies (p > 0.05), mucosal inflammation, inflammatory markers, and fecal calprotectin (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia after serrated polyp detection was similar in patients with and without IBD. Serrated polyps in IBD occurred independently of inflammation. This helps inform surveillance intervals for patients with IBD diagnosed with serrated polyps.

International consensus on the management of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Accuracy in Polyp Size Measurement Among Surgeons, Gastroenterologists, Trainees, and Experts: A Prospective Video-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Polyp size determination plays an important role in endoscopic decision making and follow-up determination. However, there is a lack of knowledge of endoscopist accuracy for polyp sizing and efficacy of available tools for size measurement. Our aim was to compare the accuracy of visual assessment, snare, forceps, and virtual scale endoscope (VSE) in estimating polyp size among a diverse group of endoscopists. METHODS: We conducted a prospective video-based study. One hundred twenty polyps measured and recorded along with all available measurement tools were randomized to visual assessment, snare, forceps, or VSE group. Eleven endoscopists conducted video-based measurement using the randomized measurement tool. Primary outcome was relative accuracy in polyp size measurement compared with caliper measurement immediately postresection. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred twenty measurements were performed. VSE had statistically significantly higher relative accuracy when compared to forceps (79.3 vs 71.3%; P < 0.0001). Forceps had statistically significantly higher relative accuracy when compared to visual assessment (71.3 vs 63.6%; P = 0.0036). There was no statistically significant difference when comparing visual assessment and snare-based measurements (63.6 vs 62.8%; P = 0.797). Overall, 21.5% of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as ≤5 mm and 17.3% of polyps ≥10 mm were misclassified as <10 mm. VSE had the lowest percentage of polyps >5 mm misclassified as ≤5 mm (2.6%), polyps ≤5 mm misclassified as >5 mm (5.1%), and polyps <10 mm misclassified as ≥10 mm (1.7%). DISCUSSION: Visual size estimation of polyps is inaccurate independently of training level, sex, and specialty. Size measurement accuracy can be improved using forceps and yields the highest relative accuracy when an adaptive scale technology is used.

Risk of total metachronous advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy after detection of serrated lesions: a matched case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND : Serrated lesions are potential colorectal cancer precursors. This study evaluated the presence of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) at follow-up in patients with index serrated lesions compared with a matched cohort without serrated lesions. METHODS : Patients aged 45-74 years with serrated lesions were matched 2:1 by sex, age, synchronous polyps, and timing of index colonoscopy, to patients without serrated lesions. The primary outcome was T-MAN (advanced adenoma or high-risk serrated lesion) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included presence of T-MAN stratified by synchronous polyps and serrated lesion characteristics. RESULTS : 1425 patients were included (475 patients, 642 serrated lesions; 950 controls; median follow-up 2.9 versus 3.6 years). Patients with serrated lesions had greater risk of T-MAN than those without (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, 95 %CI 3.9-9.6). Patients with serrated lesions and high-risk adenoma (HRA) had higher risk of T-MAN than those with HRA alone (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.4-4.7); similarly, patients with serrated lesions plus low-risk adenoma (LRA) had higher risk than those with LRA alone (HR 7.0, 95 %CI 2.8-18.4), as did patients with serrated lesions without adenoma compared with no adenoma (HR 14.9, 95 %CI 6.5-34.0). Presence of proximal sessile serrated lesion (SSL; HR 9.3, 95 %CI 5.4-15.9), large SSL (HR 17.8, 95 %CI 7.4-43.3), and proximal large SSL (HR 25.0, 95 %CI 8.8-71.3), but not distal SSL, were associated with greater risk for T-MAN. CONCLUSION : Patients with serrated lesions had higher risk for T-MAN regardless of synchronous adenomas. Patients with serrated lesions and HRA, and those with large or proximal SSLs, were at greatest risk.

Incomplete resection of colorectal polyps of 4-20 mm in size when using a cold snare, and its associated factors.

BACKGROUND : Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is increasingly used for polypectomy and is recommended as the first-line modality for small (< 10 mm) polyps. This study aimed to evaluate incomplete resection rates (IRRs) when using CSP for colorectal polyps of 4-20 mm. METHODS : Adults (45-80 years) undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy and CSP by one of nine endoscopists were included. The primary outcome was the IRR for colorectal polyps of 4-20 mm, defined as the presence of polyp tissue in marginal biopsies after resection of serrated polyps or adenomas. Secondary outcomes included the IRR for serrated polyps, ease of resection, and complications. RESULTS: 413 patients were included (mean age 63; 48 % women) and 182 polyps sized 4-20 mm were detected and removed by CSP. CSP required conversion to hot snare resection in < 1 % of polyps of < 10 mm and 44 % of polyps sized 10-20 mm. The IRRs for polyps < 10 mm and ≥ 10 mm were 18 % and 21 %. The IRR was higher for serrated polyps (26 %) compared with adenomas (16 %). The IRR was higher for flat (IIa) polyps (odds ratio [OR] 2.9, 95 %CI 1.1-7.4); and when resection was judged as difficult (OR 4.2, 95 %CI 1.5-12.1), piecemeal resection was performed (OR 6.6, 95 %CI 2.0-22.0), or visible residual polyp was present after the initial resection (OR 5.4, 95 %CI 2.0-14.9). Polyp location, use of a dedicated cold snare, and submucosal injection were not associated with incomplete resection. Intraprocedural bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention occurred in 4.7 %. CONCLUSIONS : CSP for polyps of 4-9 mm is safe and feasible; however, for lesions ≥ 10 mm, CSP failure occurs frequently, and the IRR remains high even after technical success. Incomplete resection was associated with flat polyps, visual residual polyp, piecemeal resection, and difficult polypectomies.

Rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer in patients with colonic serrated lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated lesions (SL) have been associated with significant risks of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Data on synchronous findings after SL detection during colonoscopy is limited. Study aim was to evaluate the rate of synchronous advanced neoplasia (S-AN) and synchronous CRC (S-CRC) in colonoscopies where SLs were detected. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of screening aged patients 45-74year with colorectal SL (sessile serrated polyp [SSP] or traditional serrated adenoma [TSA]) detected during an elective colonoscopy. Primary outcome was risk of S-AN in patients with SL. Secondary outcomes included risk of S-AN or S-CRC stratified by SL characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 1262 patients with 1649 SLs (1214 with SSPs and 48 with TSAs). 47.2% were female and 22.9% of exams were screening colonoscopies, 48.2% surveillance, 28.9% diagnostic. The overall rates of S-AN and S-CRC were 15.1% and 1.3%, respectively. Presence of SSPs ≥ 10 mm was associated with higher rates of S-AN, (18.1 vs. 12.2%, Odds-Ratio [OR] = 1.61 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.17-2.23], p = 0.004). SSP dysplasia was predictive of S-AN, (30.3 vs 14.1%, OR = 2.68 [95%CI 1.24-5.78], p = 0.012) but not S-CRC. SSP number (≥ 3) and location (proximal) were not predictors of S-AN or S-CRC. CONCLUSION: Patients with SLs are at high-risk of S-AN and S-CRC. Findings of SSPs ≥ 10 mm and SSP dysplasia are associated with high-risk of S-AN. Endoscopists should exercise heightened vigilance for synchronous findings when SLs are detected, especially SSPs ≥ 10 mm or when bowel preparation is suboptimal. Studies contrasting synchronous risk of other polyp types are needed to confirm these results.

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.

EMR combined with hybrid argon plasma coagulation to prevent recurrence of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is the mainstay of therapy for large colorectal polyps. Local recurrence after EMR is common and can be reduced using margin ablation. Our aim was to evaluate recurrence rates when using hybrid argon plasma coagulation (h-APC) ablation after EMR. METHODS: Adult patients (aged 18-89 years) undergoing EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. h-APC was used to ablate all defect margins and also the resection surface in selected cases. The primary study outcome was recurrence rates found during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event rates. RESULTS: EMR with h-APC ablation was used in 101 polyps (84 patients, 46.4% women). EMR with h-APC ablation was technically successful in all cases (median EMR time, 15 minutes; median h-APC ablation time, 4 minutes). Median polyp size was 30 mm (range, 20-60). Resected polyps were either adenomas (68/101 [67.3%]), sessile serrated lesions (27/101 [27%]), or adenocarcinomas (6/101 [6%]). The post-EMR recurrence rate was 2.2% (2/91) (95% confidence interval, .27-7.71). All 6 patients with cancer (intramucosal cancer, 4; T1sm cancer, 2) were found to have complete eradication of the primary tumor after EMR with h-APC, and none had lymph node metastasis. Four serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 delayed bleeding [2.4%], 1 abdominal pain [1.2%], and 1 microperforation [1.2%]. All serious adverse events resolved with either endoscopic or antibiotic treatment only. CONCLUSIONS: EMR with h-APC showed a high technical success rate, low adverse event rate, and very low post-EMR recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04015765.).

What size cutoff level should be used to implement optical polyp diagnosis?

BACKGROUND : The risk of advanced pathology increases with polyp size, as does the potential for mismanagement when optical diagnosis is used. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients who would be assigned inadequate surveillance intervals when different size cutoffs are adopted for use of optical diagnosis. METHODS : In a post hoc analysis of three prospective studies, the use of optical diagnosis was evaluated for three polyp size groups: 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom advanced adenomas were found and optical diagnosis resulted in delayed surveillance. Secondary outcomes included agreements between surveillance intervals based on high confidence optical diagnosis and pathology outcomes, reduction in histopathological examinations, and proportion of patients who could receive an immediate surveillance recommendation. RESULTS : We included 3374 patients (7291 polyps ≤ 10 mm) undergoing complete colonoscopies (median age 66.0 years, 75.2 % male, 29.6 % for screening). The percentage of patients with advanced adenomas and either 2- or 7-year delayed surveillance intervals (n = 79) was 3.8 %, 15.2 %, and 25.3 % for size cutoffs of 1-3, 1-5, and 1-10 mm polyps, respectively (P < 0.001). Surveillance interval agreements between pathology and optical diagnosis for the three groups were 97.2 %, 95.5 %, and 94.2 %, respectively. Total reductions in pathology examinations for the three groups were 33.5 %, 62.3 %, and 78.2 %, respectively. CONCLUSION : A 3-mm cutoff for clinical implementation of optical diagnosis resulted in a very low risk of delayed management of advanced neoplasia while showing high surveillance interval agreement with pathology and a one-third reduction in overall requirement for pathology examinations.

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.

Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial comparing endoscopic image-enhancing modalities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optical polyp diagnosis using image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) allows for real-time histology prediction of colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to evaluate a recently introduced IEE modality (Optivista [OV]; Pentax Medical, Tokyo, Japan) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of subjects (ages 45-80 years) undergoing elective screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy, all colorectal polyps between 1 and 5 mm underwent IEE assessment. Study subjects were randomized before their colonoscopy procedure to undergo optical polyp diagnosis using either OV IEE or iScan (IS) IEE. A validated IEE scale (NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic classification) was used for optical polyp diagnosis. The primary outcome was the agreement of surveillance intervals determined when using OV IEE compared with IS IEE in reference with pathology-based surveillance intervals. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of surveillance intervals that could be given on the same day as the procedure, percentage of pathology tests avoided, diagnostic performance, and negative predictive value (NPV) of optical diagnosis for rectosigmoid adenomas. RESULTS: Four hundred ten patients were enrolled in the trial. The polyp detection rate was 58.6%, and the adenoma detection rate was 38.8%. The proportion of correct surveillance interval assignment when using OV or IS IEE was 96.5% versus 96.0% (P = .75). A total of 65.1% of patients could be given same-day surveillance intervals when using OV IEE versus 73.1% for IS IEE (P = .07). The NPV for rectosigmoid adenomas (including sessile serrated adenomas) was 97.5% when using OV IEE and 88.2% when using IS IEE. Using high-confidence optical diagnosis instead of pathology would have resulted in a 44.3% elimination of required pathology examinations for OV IEE versus 52.8% for IS IEE (P = .34). CONCLUSIONS: Optical diagnosis using OV and IS IEE both surpassed the 90% benchmark of surveillance interval assignment, and no significant difference with regard to correct surveillance interval assignment was found. OV IEE surpassed the ≥90% NPV for rectosigmoid adenomas, whereas IS IEE did not. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03515343.).

An international polypectomy practice survey.

Background and study aims: In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been recommended as the preferred approach for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. We conducted an international survey among endoscopists to understand the uptake of CSP and changes in polypectomy practice during recent years.Patients and methods: Endoscopists were invited through gastroenterology, colorectal surgery and endoscopy societies to participate in an online survey. The primary outcome was to identify the predominant polypectomy approach used to remove 4‒10 mm colorectal polyps. Secondary outcomes included the uptake of CSP in the past 5 years, current polypectomy practice patterns for 1‒20 mm polyps, practice changes in recent years, and perceived benefits/concerns related to different polypectomy techniques.Results: The survey was distributed internationally by nine societies and completed by 808 endoscopists (response rate 3.7%). CSP was the predominant polypectomy technique for 4‒5 mm polyps (67.0%, 95% CI, 63.7-70.2%) and 6‒10 mm polyps (55.2%, 95% CI, 51.8-58.6%). For 1‒3 mm polyps, cold forceps remained the predominant technique (78.4%, 95% CI, 75.6-81.3%), whereas hot snare polypectomy (HSP) remained the predominant technique for 10‒20 mm polyps (92.5%, 95% CI, 90.7-94.3%). 87.5% (95% CI, 85.2-89.8%) of endoscopists reported an increase in CSP use during the past 5 years.Conclusions: This survey found a substantial increase in CSP use during recent years. CSP has become the predominant polypectomy approach for 4‒10 mm colorectal polyps, while HSP remained the predominant approach for larger (10‒20 mm) polyps. Clinical practice patterns are well aligned with recently issued guideline recommendations.