Usefulness of a novel calibrated hood to determine indications for colon polypectomy: visual estimation of polyp size is not accurate

Endoscopic size measurement of colorectal polyps: a systematic review of techniques

Accurate size measurement of colorectal polyps is critical for clinical decision making and patient management. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current techniques used for colonic polyp measurement to improve the reliability of size estimations in routine practice.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to identify studies relevant to size measurement techniques published between 1980 and March 2024. The primary outcome was the accuracy of polyp sizing techniques used during colonoscopy.61 studies were included with 34 focusing on unassisted and assisted endoscopic visual estimation and 27 on computer-based tools. There was significant variability in visual size estimation among endoscopists. The most accurate techniques identified were computer-based systems, such as virtual scale endoscopes (VSE) and artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems. The least accurate techniques were visual or snare-based polyp size estimation. VSE assists endoscopists by providing an adaptive scale for real-time, direct, in vivo polyp measurements, while AI systems offer size measurements independent of the endoscopist's subjective judgment.This review highlights the need for standardized, accurate, and accessible techniques to optimize sizing accuracy during endoscopic procedures. There is no consensus on a gold standard for measuring polyps during colonoscopy. While biopsy forceps, snare, and graduated devices can improve the accuracy of visual size estimation, their clinical implementation is limited by practical, time, and cost challenges. Computer-based techniques will likely offer improved accuracy of polyp sizing in the near future.

Virtual scale endoscope versus snares for accuracy of size measurement of smaller colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial for informing clinical decisions such as resection technique and surveillance scheduling. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of polyp size measurement when using a virtual scale endoscope (VSE) or snare-based polyp size measurement.This randomized controlled trial enrolled 221 patients undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic outpatient colonoscopies. Study subjects were randomized to have polyps detected during the colonoscopy measured for size either using the VSE or a snare of known size to estimate the size of each polyp. All polyps were measured for reference size directly after their removal from the colon using a digital caliper and before formalin fixation.93 polyps were included in the VSE group and 102 in the snare group. The VSE demonstrated significantly higher relative accuracy (80.0% [95%CI 77.0%-82.9%]) compared with snare-based size estimation (66.4% [95%CI 62.4%-70.5%]; P < 0.001). Misclassification rates were lower with the VSE for polyps >2 mm (13.1% vs. 39.3%) and >3 mm (22.6% vs. 55.4%). For diminutive polyps, the VSE better prevented misclassification of >5 mm polyps as 1-5 mm (21.4% vs. 73.0%). The VSE also outperformed snare-based estimation in measuring within 10% of the reference standard size (30.1% vs. 18.6%) and had lower rates of size underestimation (36.5% vs. 65.7%).Using the VSE improves the accuracy of polyp size measurement during colonoscopy in comparison with snare-based size estimation. In clinical scenarios, the VSE reduced misclassifications at clinically relevant size thresholds 2, 3, and 5 mm, which is relevant for the correct choice of polypectomy technique or when implementing resect-and-discard strategies.

Usefulness of virtual scale endoscope for early gastrointestinal lesions

Objectives

For early gastrointestinal lesions, size is an important factor in the selection of treatment. Virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a newly developed endoscope that can measure size more accurately than visual measurement. This study aimed to investigate whether VSE measurement is accurate for early gastrointestinal lesions of various sizes and morphologies.

Methods

This study prospectively enrolled patients with early gastrointestinal lesions ≤20 mm in size visually. Lesion sizes were measured in the gastrointestinal tract visually, on endoscopic resection specimens with VSE, and finally on endoscopic resection specimens using a ruler. The primary endpoint was the normalized difference (ND) of VSE measurement. The secondary endpoints were the ND of visual measurement and the variation between NDs of VSE and visual measurements. ND was calculated as (100 × [measured size - true size] / true size) (%). True size was defined as size measured using a ruler.

Results

This study included 60 lesions from April 2022 to December 2022, with 20 each in the esophagus, stomach, and colon. The lesion size was 14.0 ± 6.3 mm (mean ± standard deviation). Morphologies were protruded, slightly elevated, and flat or slightly depressed type in 8, 24, and 28 lesions, respectively. The primary endpoint was 0.3 ± 8.8%. In the secondary endpoints, the ND of visual measurement was -1.7 ± 29.3%, and the variability was significantly smaller in the ND of VSE measurement than in that of visual measurement (p < 0.001, F-test).

Conclusions

VSE measurement is accurate for early gastrointestinal lesions of various sizes and morphologies.

Accuracy of Visual Estimation for Measuring Colonic Polyp Size: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of colorectal polyps is typically performed through visual estimation, which is prone to bias. Studies have evaluated the accuracy of visual estimation and utility of assistive tools, but results have been mixed. The aim of this study was to clarify the accuracy of visual estimation as a measurement tool and the benefits of artificial intelligence.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched through October 2024. Extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. The primary outcome was the pooled absolute mean difference in size between visual estimation and control. Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis of expert vs trainee status, accuracy of artificial intelligence, study origin (East vs West), comparator type, definition of accuracy, polyp size, direction of estimation, and image type.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies with 42,964 polyp measurements were included in our analysis. All studies were of high quality, and there was no evidence of publication bias. The pooled absolute mean difference from comparator was 1.68 mm (confidence interval 1.21-2.15) with high variability explained by differences in the comparator, direction of estimation, image type, and size of the polyp. Overall accuracy was 60% with high variability as well, with increased accuracy with video displayed over photographs. Artificial intelligence improved accuracy with an odds ratio of 7.46.

DISCUSSION

Visual estimation is an inaccurate and imprecise way to measure colorectal polyps. Further research is needed to determine the impact on clinical outcomes related to colorectal cancer. Investment in new technology to aid in polyp measurement is an important next step.

Taking the Guess Work Out of Endoscopic Polyp Measurement: From Traditional Methods to AI

Colonoscopy is a crucial tool for evaluating lower gastrointestinal disease, monitoring high-risk patients for colorectal neoplasia, and screening for colorectal cancer. In the United States, over 14 million colonoscopies are performed annually, with a significant portion dedicated to post-polypectomy follow-up. Accurate measurement of colorectal polyp size during colonoscopy is essential, as it influences patient management, including the determination of surveillance intervals, resection strategies, and the assessment of malignancy risk. Despite its importance, many endoscopists typically rely on visual estimation alone, which is often imprecise due to technological and human biases, frequently leading to overestimations of polyp size and unnecessarily shortened surveillance intervals. To address these challenges, multiple tools and technologies have been developed to enhance the accuracy of polyp size estimation. The review examines the evolution of polyp measurement techniques, ranging from through-the-scope tools to computer-based and artificial intelligence-assisted technologies.

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.

The role of cap-assisted endoscopy and its future implications

Cap-assisted endoscopy refers to a procedure in which a short tube made of a polymer (mostly transparent) is attached to the distal tip of the endoscope to enhance its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. It is reported to be particularly useful in: (1) minimizing blind spots during screening colonoscopy, (2) providing a constant distance from a lesion for clear visualization during magnifying endoscopy, (3) accurately assessing the size of various gastrointestinal lesions, (4) preventing mucosal injury during foreign body removal, (5) securing adequate workspace in the submucosal space during endoscopic submucosal dissection or third space endoscopy, (6) providing an optimal approach angle to a target, and (7) suctioning mucosal and submucosal tissue with negative pressure for resection or approximation. Here, we review various applications of attachable caps in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and their future implications.

Usefulness and Educational Benefit of a Virtual Scale Endoscope in Measuring Colorectal Polyp Size

INTRODUCTION

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a newly introduced endoscope that helps endoscopists in measuring colorectal polyp size (CPS) during colonoscopy by displaying a virtual scale. This study aimed to determine the usefulness of the VSE for CPS measurement and the educational benefit of using VSE images to improve CPS estimation accuracy.

METHODS

This study included 42 colorectal polyps in 26 patients treated at Hiroshima University Hospital. In study 1, CPS measured using a VSE before endoscopic mucosal resection was compared with CPS measured on resected specimens, and the agreement between the two measurement methods was evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis. In study 2, 14 endoscopists (5 beginners, 5 intermediates, and 4 experts) took a pre-test to determine the size of 42 polyps. After the pre-test, a lecture on CPS measurement using VSE images was given. One month later, the endoscopists took a post-test to compare CPS accuracy before and after the lecture.

RESULTS

In study 1, Bland-Altman analysis revealed no fixed or proportional errors. The mean bias ±95% limits of agreement (±1.96 standard deviations) of the measurement error was -0.05 ± 0.21 mm, indicating that the agreement between two measurement methods was sufficient. In study 2, the accuracy of CPS measurement was significantly higher among beginners (59.5% vs. 26.7%, p < 0.01) and intermediates (65.2% vs. 44.3%, p < 0.05) in the post-test than in the pre-test.

CONCLUSION

The VSE accurately measures CPS before resection, and its images are useful teaching tools for beginner and intermediate endoscopists.

Estimating colorectal polyp size with a virtual scale endoscope and visual estimation during colonoscopy: Prospective, preliminary comparison of accuracy

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a new endoscope that helps estimate the size of neoplasms in the gastrointestinal tract. We compared the accuracy of polyp size estimation by VSE with that of visual estimation. A dual center prospective study was conducted in two Japanese academic endoscopy units. Ten endoscopists (five trainees and five experts) estimated the size of 20 simulated polyps in four colon phantoms during colonoscopy by two methods: conventional visual estimation and estimation by VSE. The primary endpoint was the relative accuracy in relation to true polyp size according to visual estimation and VSE estimation during colonoscopy. The secondary endpoint was the required time (the time needed to measure in each procedure). The mean values of the primary end-point were 62.5% for visual estimation and 84.0% for VSE estimation; hence the result differed significantly (95% confidence interval 18.3-24.7; P < 0.001). The mean of required times was significantly longer for estimation by VSE (6.4 min) than that by visual estimation (2.9 min; P < 0.001). The accuracy of colorectal polyp size estimation was superior with VSE than with visual estimation during colonoscopy. In the future, VSE should be evaluated in actual clinical settings, including the time required for size estimation.

Factors influencing endoscopic estimation of colon polyp size in a colon model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal polyps are removed to prevent progression to colorectal cancer. Polyp size is an important factor for risk stratification of malignant transformation. Endoscopic size estimation correlates poorly with pathological reports and several factors have been suggested to influence size estimation. We aimed to gain insight into the factors influencing endoscopic polyp size estimation.

METHODS

Images of polyps in an artificial model were obtained at 1, 3, and 5 cm from the colonoscope's tip. Participants were asked to estimate the diameter and volume of each polyp.

RESULTS

Fifteen endoscopists from three large-volume centers participated in this study. With an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.71) for diameter and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50-0.62) for volume. Polyp size estimated at 3 cm from the colonoscope's tip yielded the best results. A lower distance between the tip and the polyp was associated with a larger estimated polyp size.

CONCLUSION

Correct endoscopic estimation of polyp size remains challenging. This finding can affect size estimation skills and future training programs for endoscopists.

Virtual scale function of gastrointestinal endoscopy for accurate polyp size estimation in real-time: a preliminary study

SIGNIFICANCE

Polyp size is important for selecting the surveillance interval or treatment policy. Nevertheless, it is challenging to accurately estimate the polyp size during endoscopy. An easy and cost-effective function to assist in polyp size estimation is required.

AIM

To propose a virtual scale function for endoscopy and evaluate its performance and expected accuracy.

APPROACH

An adaptive virtual scale behavior was demonstrated. The measurement error of the virtual scale along the distance between the tip of the endoscope and the object plane was evaluated using graph paper. The accuracy of polyp size estimation by an expert endoscopist was compared with the accuracy of the biopsy forceps method using phantom images.

RESULTS

The measurement errors of the virtual scale were   ≤  0.7  mm when the distance to the graph paper, which faced the tip of the endoscope, varied from 4 to 30 mm. The accuracy with the virtual scale was significantly higher than that obtained with biopsy forceps (5.3  ±  5.5  %   versus 11.9  ±  9.4  %  , P  <  0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual scale function, which operates in real-time without any additional device, can be used to estimate polyp sizes easily and accurately with endoscopy.

Usefulness of a Colonoscopy Cap with an External Grid for the Measurement of Small-Sized Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial. The usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy and external grid application on monitor (gCAP) was evaluated for polyp size measurement in this 3-year, single-center, single-blind, randomized trial. Using the endoscopic forceps width as reference, the discrepancy percent (DP), error rate (ER), and measurement time were compared between gCAP and visual estimation (VE) after randomization. ER was calculated within a 20% and 33% limit. From the 111 patients, 280 polyps were measured. The mean polyp sizes were 4.0 ± 1.7 mm and 4.2 ± 1.8 mm with gCAP and VE, respectively (p = 0.368). Compared with that by the forceps method, DP was significantly lower in the gCAP group than in the VE group. Moreover, ER was significantly lower in the gCAP group within its preset limit. The measurement time was 4 s longer in the gCAP group than in the VE group (8.2 ± 4.8 s vs. 4.2 ± 1.5 s; p < 0.001). However, the forceps method lasted 28 s longer than the others. On subgroup analysis by size, gCAP was more accurate for polyp size ≥ 5 mm. The gCAP method was more accurate for polyp size measurement than VE, especially for polyps ≥ 5 mm, and was more convenient than the forceps method.

≥3 Nonadvanced Adenomas are More Common in the Era of Contemporary Colonoscopy and Not Associated With Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia

INTRODUCTION

Data from standard definition colonoscopy era demonstrate patients with an advanced adenoma (≥10 mm, villous features or high-grade dysplasia) or ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas are considered high-risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN). Low-risk adenoma (LRA) patients are those with 1 to 2, <10 mm tubular adenomas. High definition colonoscopy, split-dose bowel preparation, and attention to adenoma detection enhance diminutive adenoma detection. We compared baseline adenoma characteristics between patients undergoing colonoscopy in a historic cohort (HC) and contemporary cohort (CC) to determine if number of patients with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas are increased in CC, and if those features are associated with MAN in CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing their first colonoscopy in HC (<2006) and CC (≥2006) at age 50 and above were identified through natural language processing. Multivariable regression analysis compared baseline adenoma characteristics between HC and CC, and determined the association between baseline characteristics and MAN in CC patients.

RESULTS

In total, 255,074 colonoscopies were performed between 1990 and 2015. A total of 9773 colonoscopies performed in the HC and 59,531 in the CC were included. At baseline, CC patients were more likely to have ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas [odds ratio (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-2.6]. In 3,377 CC patients undergoing follow-up colonoscopy, the risk of MAN did not differ between patients with LRA versus those with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas (6.3% vs. 4.6%, OR: 1.4, CI: 0.58-3.5) including 3-4 (6.1%, OR: 1.4, CI: 0.52-3.6) and ≥5 (7.7%, OR: 1.8, CI: 0.23-14.6), although few patients had ≥5 nonadvanced adenomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy in the contemporary era increases detection of patients with ≥3 nonadvanced adenomas, which do not increase the risk of MAN compared with LRA patients. A similar surveillance to LRA patients should be considered for those patients.

Should we use papilla morphology to estimate the size of the terminal common bile duct during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?

OBJECTIVE

A small common bile duct (CBD) diameter has been associated with complications and with a difficult biliary cannulation. Previous studies suggested that this diameter can be predicted during the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) simply by observing the papillary morphology. Despite this published suggestion there is no study addressing this topic. This study evaluated a possible association between the morphology of the major papilla and the diameter of the terminal CBD (t-CBD).

METHODS

Observational cross-sectional study including consecutive patients with naïve papillae was referred for ERCP in two affiliated university hospitals. The transverse (p-transv) and longitudinal measures (p-long) of the papilla were obtained using a visual method. Papillae were classified into nonprominent, prominent, bulging or other. The t-CBD was measured 1 cm from the papilla using fluoroscopic images in prone/supine. Measurements were performed by two senior endoscopists and outcomes were evaluated using correlation and linear regression model.

RESULTS

We included 245 patients with a median age of 76 years. The median p-transv for each type of papillae was as follows: nonprominent = 6 mm, prominent = 9 mm, bulging = 15 mm and other = 6 mm; P < 0.001. The median t-CBD for nonprominent = 7.62 mm, prominent = 8.34 mm, bulging = 8.60 mm and other = 8.52 mm; P = 0.40. The correlation between the transverse and longitudinal measures of papilla and the t-CBD were 0.0092 and 0.0614, respectively. In the regression model, the t-CBD diameter was not explained by papilla's size or morphology (R = 1.70%; P = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

The morphology of the papilla must not be used as a predictor of the diameter of the CBD as there is no correlation between these two items.

Variation between Pathological Measurement and Endoscopically Estimated Size of Colonic Polyps

Background and Aims

Accurate determination of colonic polyp size is vital to an appropriate surveillance. The main aim of this study was to evaluate variation between the polyp size reported by the endoscopist and its pathological measurement.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all colonic adenomatous polyps resected in a 12-month period was performed at our center. Endoscopic and pathological size for each polyp were compared, and overestimation rates, underestimation rates, and endoscopic-pathological variation (EPV) were calculated.

Results

Among the 573 polyps that were included, the mean endoscopic and pathological sizes were 8.00 and 6.66 mm, respectively. The most frequent error, in 62.1%, was overestimation by the colonoscopist. Overestimation and EPV were associated with resection technique (higher in endoscopic mucosal resection and smaller with biopsy forceps) and colonoscopist. They were not associated with years of experience in colonoscopy. Overestimation was more frequent in larger polyps.

Conclusions

Our study shows significant discordance between endoscopic and pathological size of colonic polyps with a clear tendency for endoscopic overestimation. Larger polyps are more difficult to accurately assess than smaller ones. This propensity for error was not related to colonoscopist's years of experience and seems to be an individual tendency.

Use of a novel polyp "ruler snare" improves estimation of colon polyp size

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prior studies have demonstrated that endoscopists' estimates of polyp size are imprecise. The aim of this study was to determine whether a modified polypectomy "ruler snare" improves the accuracy of assessment of polyp size in real time without the use of additional devices.

METHODS

Ten artificial polyps of predetermined sizes (4 to 25 mm) were affixed to the inside of a colon model. A standard polypectomy snare was modified by adding 5-mm graduated markings to the distal end of the plastic sheath. Study participants estimated the sizes of the artificial polyps during simulated colonoscopies, first using a standard snare and then with the modified ruler snare.

RESULTS

Thirty-four private practice and academic gastroenterologists participated in the study. Endoscopists' ability to accurately classify polyps by size (diminutive, small, or large) improved from 48.5% to 60.3% with the ruler snare (P = .002). The greatest improvement in precision was seen among the large polyps, where accuracy increased from 35.9% to 58.2% with use of the ruler snare (P < .0001). Participants underestimated polyp size by a mean of 3.6 mm (interquartile range, -5 to -2 mm) with the standard snare and 1.8 mm (interquartile range, -3 to 0 mm) with the ruler snare, which corresponded to a 44.2% improvement in accuracy with the ruler snare (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified ruler snare improved polyp size assessment compared with a standard snare, particularly with large polyps. Overall, although size estimation continues to be imprecise, the addition of calibrated markings to a polypectomy snare is a simple and likely low-cost means to improve neoplasia surveillance recommendations.