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.

Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: Procedure-intense specialties, such as surgery or endoscopy, are a major contributor to the impact of the healthcare sector on the environment. We aimed to measure the amount of waste generated during endoscopic procedures and to understand the impact on waste of changing from reusable to single use endoscopes in the USA. DESIGN: We conducted a 5-day audit (cross-sectional study) of all endoscopies performed at two US academic medical centres with low and a high endoscopy volume (2000 and 13 000 procedures annually, respectively). We calculated the average disposable waste (excluding waste from reprocessing) generated during one endoscopic procedure to estimate waste of all endoscopic procedures generated in the USA annually (18 million). We further estimated the impact of changing from reusable to single-use endoscopes taking reprocessing waste into account. RESULTS: 278 endoscopies were performed for 243 patients. Each endoscopy generated 2.1 kg of disposable waste (46 L volume). 64% of waste was going to the landfill, 28% represented biohazard waste and 9% was recycled. The estimated total waste generated during all endoscopic procedures performed in the USA annually would weigh 38 000 metric tons (equivalent of 25 000 passenger cars) and cover 117 soccer fields to 1 m depth. If all endoscopic procedures were performed with single-use endoscopes and accounting for reprocessing, the net waste mass would increase by 40%. Excluding waste from ancillary supplies, net waste generated from reprocessing and endoscope disposal would quadruple with only using single-use endoscopes. CONCLUSION: This quantitative assessment of the environmental impact of endoscopic procedures highlights that a large amount of waste is generated from disposable instruments. Transitioning to single-use endoscopes may reduce reprocessing waste but would increase net waste.

Recurrence of Colorectal Neoplastic Polyps After Incomplete Resection.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete resection of neoplastic polyps is considered an important reason for the development of colorectal cancer. However, there are no data on the natural history of polyps that were incompletely removed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk for metachronous neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy after documented incomplete polyp resection. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients who participated in the CARE (Complete Adenoma REsection) study (2009 to 2012). SETTING: 2 academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients who had resection of a 5- to 20-mm neoplastic polyp, had a documented complete or incomplete resection, and had a surveillance examination. MEASUREMENTS: Segment metachronous neoplasia, defined as the proportion of colon segments with at least 1 neoplastic polyp at first surveillance examination, was measured. Segment metachronous neoplasia was compared between segments with a prior incomplete polyp resection (incomplete segments) and those with a prior complete resection (complete segments), accounting for clustering of segments within patients. RESULTS: Of 233 participants in the original study, 166 (71%) had at least 1 surveillance examination. Median time to surveillance was shorter after incomplete versus complete resection (median, 17 vs. 45 months). The risk for any metachronous neoplasia was greater in segments with incomplete versus complete resection (52% vs. 23%; risk difference [RD], 28% [95% CI, 9% to 47%]; P = 0.004). Incomplete segments also had a greater number of neoplastic polyps (mean, 0.8 vs. 0.3; RD, 0.50 [CI, 0.1 to 0.9]; P = 0.008) and greater risk for advanced neoplasia (18% vs. 3%; RD, 15% [CI, 1% to 29%]; P = 0.034). Incomplete resection was the strongest independent factor associated with metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio, 3.0 [CI, 1.12 to 8.17]). LIMITATION: Potential patient selection bias due to incomplete follow-up. CONCLUSION: This natural history study found a statistically significantly greater risk for future neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in colon segments after incomplete resection compared with segments with complete resection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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.).