Variations in the management of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer: results from a multicentre observational study of 383 patients.

AIM: The concept of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer (SPECC) encompasses complex polyps not amenable to routine snare polypectomy or where malignancy cannot be excluded. Surgical resection (SR) offers definitive treatment, but is overtreatment for the majority which are benign and amenable to less invasive endoscopic resection (ER). The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the management and outcomes of significant colorectal polyps. METHOD: This was a retrospective observational study of significant colorectal polyps, defined as nonpedunculated lesions of ≥ 20 mm size, diagnosed across nine UK hospitals in 2014. Inclusion criteria were endoscopically or histologically benign polyps at biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 383 patients were treated by primary ER (87.2%) or SR (12.8%). Overall, 108/383 (28%) polyps were detected in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Primary SR was associated with a significantly longer length of stay and major complications (P < 0.01). Of the ER polyps, 290/334 (86.8%) patients were treated without undergoing surgery. The commonest indication for secondary surgery was unexpected polyp cancer, and of these cases 60% had no residual cancer in the specimen. Incidence of unexpected cancer was 10.7% (n = 41) and was similar between ER and SR groups (P = 0.11). On multivariate analysis, a polyp size of > 30 mm and non-BCSP status were independent risk factors for primary SR [OR 2.51 (95% CI 1.08-5.82), P = 0.03]. CONCLUSION: ER is safe and feasible for treating significant colorectal polyps. Robust accreditation within the BCSP has led to improvements in management, with lower rates of SR compared with non-BCSP patients. Standardization, training in polyp assessment and treatment within a multidisciplinary team may help to select appropriate treatment strategies and improve outcomes.

Report of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology Colorectal Polyp Working Group: the development of a complex colorectal polyp minimum dataset.

AIM: The management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is complex, with widespread variation in management and outcome, even amongst experienced clinicians. Variations in the assessment and decision-making processes are likely to be a major factor in this variability. The creation of a standardized minimum dataset to aid decision-making may therefore result in improved clinical management. METHOD: An official working group of 13 multidisciplinary specialists was appointed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) to develop a minimum dataset on LNPCPs. The literature review used to structure the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines for the management of LNPCPs was used by a steering subcommittee to identify various parameters pertaining to the decision-making processes in the assessment and management of LNPCPs. A modified Delphi consensus process was then used for voting on proposed parameters over multiple voting rounds with at least 80% agreement defined as consensus. The minimum dataset was used in a pilot process to ensure rigidity and usability. RESULTS: A 23-parameter minimum dataset with parameters relating to patient and lesion factors, including six parameters relating to image retrieval, was formulated over four rounds of voting with two pilot processes to test rigidity and usability. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the development of the first reported evidence-based and expert consensus minimum dataset for the management of LNPCPs. It is anticipated that this dataset will allow comprehensive and standardized lesion assessment to improve decision-making in the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).(AU)

A novel method for determining the difficulty of colonoscopic polypectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopists are now expected to perform polypectomy routinely. Colonic polypectomy varies in difficulty, depending on polyp morphology, size, location and access. The measurement of the degree of difficulty of polypectomy, based on polyp characteristics, has not previously been described. OBJECTIVE: To define the level of difficulty of polypectomy. METHODS: Consensus by nine endoscopists regarding parameters that determine the complexity of a polyp was achieved through the Delphi method. The endoscopists then assigned a polyp complexity level to each possible combination of parameters. A scoring system to measure the difficulty level of a polyp was developed and validated by two different expert endoscopists. RESULTS: Through two Delphi rounds, four factors for determining the complexity of a polypectomy were identified: size (S), morphology (M), site (S) and access (A). A scoring system was established, based on size (1-9 points), morphology (1-3 points), site (1-2 points) and access (1-3 points). Four polyp levels (with increasing level of complexity) were identified based on the range of scores obtained: level I (4-5), level II (6-9), level III (10-12) and level IV (>12). There was a high degree of interrater reliability for the polyp scores (interclass correlation coefficient of 0.93) and levels (κ=0.888). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system is feasible and reliable. Defining polyp complexity levels may be useful for planning training, competency assessment and certification in colonoscopic polypectomy. This may allow for more efficient service delivery and referral pathways.

A randomized, controlled trial of narrow-band imaging vs high-definition white light for adenoma detection in patients at high risk of adenomas.

AIM: The study aimed to investigate whether narrow-band imaging (NBI) can enhance adenoma detection in patients at high risk for adenomas compared with high-definition white-light endoscopy (WLE). High risk was defined as three or more adenomas at last colonoscopy, history of colorectal cancer and positive faecal occult blood test. METHOD: Two hundred and fourteen patients were randomized 1:1 to examination with NBI or WLE. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma detected. Secondary outcomes included total adenomas and polyps, flat adenomas, nonadenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas and patients with three or five or more adenomas. A post hoc analysis to examine the effect of endoscopist and bowel preparation was performed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma: NBI 73%vs WLE 66%, odds ratio 1.40 (95% CI 0.78-2.52), P = 0.26. There was no significant difference for any secondary outcome measure except for the number of flat adenomas which was significantly greater with NBI [comparison ratio 2.66 (95% CI 1.52-4.63), P = 0.001]. Post hoc analysis indicated that one of three endoscopists performed significantly better for adenoma detection with NBI than WLE [comparison ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.07-3.44), P = 0.03]. Good bowel preparation was associated with significantly improved adenoma detection with NBI [comparison ratio 1.55 (95% CI 1.01-2.22), P = 0.04] but not with fair preparation. CONCLUSION: Overall NBI did not improve detection compared with WLE in a group of patients at high risk for colorectal adenomas, but specific subgroups might benefit.

Achieving high quality colonoscopy: using graphical representation to measure performance and reset standards.

AIM: Completeness and thoroughness of colonoscopy are measured by the caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR). National standards are ≥ 90% and ≥ 10% respectively. Variability in CIR and ADR have been demonstrated but comparison between individuals and units is difficult. We aimed to assess the performance of colonoscopy in endoscopy units in the northeast of England. METHOD: Data on colonoscopy performance and sedation use were collected over 3 months from 12 units. Colonoscopies performed by screening colonoscopists were included for the CIR only. Funnel plots with upper and lower 95% confidence limits for CIR and ADR were created. RESULTS: CIR was 92.5% (n = 5720) and ADR 15.9% (n = 4748). All units and 128 (99.2%) colonoscopists were above the lower limit for CIR. All units achieved the ADR standard with 10 above the upper limit. Ninety-nine (76.7%) colonoscopists were above 10%, 16 (12.4%) above the upper limit and 7 (5.4%) below the lower limit. Median medication doses were 2.2 mg midazolam, 29.4 mg pethidine and 83.3 µg fentanyl. In all, 15.1% of colonoscopies were unsedated. Complications were bleeding (0.10%) and perforation (0.02%). There was one death possibly related to bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that colonoscopies are performed safely and to a high standard. Funnel plots can highlight variability and areas for improvement. Analyses of ADR presented graphically around the global mean suggest that the national standard should be reset at 15%.

The first 3 years of national bowel cancer screening at a single UK tertiary centre.

AIM: St Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre commenced screening in October 2006 as a contributor to the national programme. The first 35 months' experience is reported. METHOD: Individuals with a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) were offered colonoscopy or alternatives if they had significant comorbidity. All screening data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Of the 98 815 FOBT kits issued, 42 523 were returned (43% uptake; 20.79% men). In total, 1339/1488 (90%) FOBT-positive participants attended the nurse clinic (57% men). Of these, 1057 had an index colonoscopy, 115 had a computed tomography colonoscopy (CTC) and eight had a flexible sigmoidoscopy. Five hundred and seventeen (44%) procedures were 'normal' (no polyps/cancers). Eighty (6%) individuals had colorectal cancer. The polyp detection rate in index procedures, including colonoscopy, CTC and flexible sigmoidoscopy, was 50%. The adenoma detection rate of all colonoscopies was 62.8%. The median polyp size was 5 (1-80) mm. In total, 1200 colonoscopies were performed by five accredited colonoscopists (96% completion rate). There were 13 (1%) adverse events with < 1 in 500 patients undergoing polypectomy requiring a transfusion. There was one 30-day postsurgical mortality, one perforation and no colonoscopy-related mortality. Almost all 39/40 (97%) patients in the BCS programme felt that the findings were adequately explained compared with 21/32 (64%) elective patients (P < 0.001) within the same unit. CONCLUSIONS: At this bowel cancer screening single centre, colonoscopy completion rates were high (unadjusted caecal intubation rate of 96%) and complication rates were low. In contrast to other published data, the uptake and cancer-detection rates were lower.

What is the most reliable imaging modality for small colonic polyp characterization? Study of white-light, autofluorescence, and narrow-band imaging.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In vivo optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps has potential clinical and cost advantages, but requires accuracy and high interobserver agreement for clinically acceptability. We aimed to assess interobserver variability and diagnostic performance of endoscopic imaging modalities in characterizing small colonic polyps. METHODS: High quality still images of 80 polyps < 1 cm were recorded using white-light endoscopy (WLE), autofluorescence imaging (AFI) and narrow-band imaging with and without magnification (NBI and NBImag). All images were assessed for quality, prediction of polyp histology, and vascular pattern intensity (with NBI) by nine experienced colonoscopists (four experts in advanced imaging) from five UK centers. Interobserver agreement (kappa statistic), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated compared with histopathological findings. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement for predicting polyp histology using NBImag was significantly better for experts (κ = 0.63, substantial) compared with nonexperts (κ = 0.30, fair; P < 0.001), and was moderate for all colonoscopists with WLE, AFI and NBI. Interobserver agreement for vascular pattern intensity using NBI was 0.69 (substantial) for experts and 0.57 (good) for nonexperts. NBImag had higher sensitivity than WLE (experts, 0.93 vs. 0.68, P < 0.001; nonexperts, 0.90 vs. 0.52, P < 0.001) and higher overall accuracy (experts, 0.76 vs. 0.64, P = 0.003; nonexperts 0.61 vs. 0.40, P < 0.001). AFI had worse accuracy than WLE for both expert colonoscopists (0.53 vs. 0.64, P = 0.02) and nonexperts (0.32 vs. 0.40, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Of the imaging modalities tested, NBImag appeared to have the best overall accuracy and interobserver agreement, although not adequate for in vivo diagnosis. NBI and AFI did not have better sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy compared with WLE.

Flat colon polyps: what should radiologists know?

With the recent publication of international computed tomography (CT) colonography standards, which aim to improve quality of examinations, this review informs radiologists about the significance of flat polyps (adenomas and hyperplastic polyps) in colorectal cancer pathways. We describe flat polyp classification systems and propose how flat polyps should be reported to ensure patient management strategies are based on polyp morphology as well as size. Indeed, consistency when describing flat polyps is of increasing importance given the strengthening links between CT colonography and endoscopy.

Narrow band imaging with magnification for the characterization of small and diminutive colonic polyps: pit pattern and vascular pattern intensity.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Narrow band imaging (NBI) can accurately characterize colonic polyps using microvascular appearances. We aimed to assess whether the Kudo pit pattern classification is accurate when used with NBI (without dye-spray), and if microvascular appearances or NBI pit patterns maintain accuracy for polyp characterization at sizes < 10 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 116 polyps < 10 mm in size were detected in 62 patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The polyps were prospectively assessed using NBI and magnification for Kudo pit pattern (III-V neoplastic, I-II non-neoplastic) and vascular pattern intensity (VPI), a measure of microvascular density (strong VPI, neoplastic; normal or weak VPI, non-neoplastic). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and compared with results from histopathology. RESULTS: The mean polyp size was 3.4 mm (range 1 - 9 mm). Overall, NBI pit pattern sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.88, 0.91, and 89.6 %, respectively. Equivalent values for VPI were 0.94, 0.89, and 91.4 %. Results were similar when polyps were subdivided into diminutive polyps (size

A comparative study of standard vs. high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has a known miss rate for polyps and adenomas. High definition (HD) colonoscopes may allow detection of subtle mucosal change, potentially aiding detection of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps. AIM: To compare detection rates between HD and standard definition (SD) colonoscopy. METHODS: Prospective, cohort study with optimized withdrawal technique (withdrawal time >6 min, antispasmodic, position changes, re-examining flexures and folds). One hundred and thirty patients attending for routine colonoscopy were examined with either SD (n = 72) or HD (n = 58) colonoscopes. RESULTS: Groups were well matched. Sixty per cent of patients had at least one adenoma detected with SD vs. 71% with HD, P = 0.20, relative risk (benefit) 1.32 (95% CI 0.85-2.04). Eighty-eight adenomas (mean +/- standard deviation 1.2 +/- 1.4) were detected using SD vs. 93 (1.6 +/- 1.5) with HD, P = 0.12; however more nonflat, diminutive (<6 mm) adenomas were detected with HD, P = 0.03. Twenty-three proximal hyperplastic polyps (0.32 +/- 0.58) were detected with SD vs. 31 (0.53 +/- 0.86) with HD, P = 0.35. Overall prevalence of proximal large (>9 mm) hyperplastic polyps was 7% (0.09 +/- 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: High definition did not lead to a significant increase in adenoma or hyperplastic polyp detection, but may help where comprehensive lesion detection is paramount. High detection rates appear possible with either SD or HD, when using an optimized withdrawal technique.

Meta-analysis: narrow band imaging for lesion characterization in the colon, oesophagus, duodenal ampulla and lung.

BACKGROUND: Narrow band imaging is a new endoscopic technology that highlights mucosal surface structures and microcapillaries, which may be indicative of neoplastic change. AIM: To assess the diagnostic precision of narrow band imaging for the diagnosis of epithelial neoplasia compared to conventional histology both overall and in specific organs. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies which compared narow band imaging-based diagnosis of neoplasia with histopathology as the gold standard. Search terms: 'endoscopy' and 'narrow band imaging'. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-two patients and 1108 lesions in 11 studies were included. Overall, sensitivity was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.92-0.95), specificity 0.83 (0.80-0.86); weighted area under the curve was 0.96 (standard error 0.02), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 72.74 (34.11-155.15). DORs were 66.65 (25.84-171.90), 61.19 (7.09-527.97), 69.74 (8.04-605.24) for colon, oesophagus and lung respectively. Studies with more than 50 patients had higher diagnostic precision, relative DOR 4.96 (1.28-19.27), P = 0.022. There was no difference in accuracy between microvessel and mucosal (pit) pattern based measures, relative DOR 1.29 (0.05-35.16), P = 0.87. There was significant heterogeneity overall between studies, Q = 31.2, P = 0.003. CONCLUSION: Narrow band imaging is accurate with high diagnostic precision for in vivo diagnosis of neoplasia across a range of organs, using simple microvessel-based measures.

Endoscopic surveillance of the ileoanal pouch following restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis.

Persistence of underlying disease in the residual rectal mucosa and anal transition zone occurs following mucosectomy with either a hand-sewn anastomosis or a double-stapled anastomosis. Furthermore, recent reports have suggested an increased incidence of neoplasia in the pouch body. For this reason, endoscopic surveillance is performed not only as a screening tool to detect significant intraepithelial neoplastic lesions but also with secondary therapeutic intent aimed at reducing the adenoma burden within the ileoanal pouch. Conventional endoscopic assessment of the ileoanal pouch can be challenging. In the future, novel adjunctive endoscopic technologies such as magnification endoscopy and confocal endomicroscopy may improve our diagnostic and therapeutic management of this group.