In situ measurement of colorectal polyps to compare video and fiberoptic endoscopes

Mis-sizing of Adenomatous Polyps is Common among Endoscopists and Impacts Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations

Background/Aims

To determine the accuracy of identifying ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps during colonoscopy and define its impact on subsequent interval screening.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Banner University Medical Center, Tucson from 2011 to 2015. All patients with ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps based on their colonoscopy report were included. Adenomatous polyps were excluded if they did not meet the criteria. Discrepancies in the polyp size were determined by calculating the percentage of size variation (SV). Clinical mis-sizing was defined as SV >33%.

Results

The polyps analyzed were predominantly <10 mm in size. Approximately 13% of the examined polyps met the inclusion criteria, and 40.7% of the adenomas were ≥10 mm. A total of 189 ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps were collected from 10 different gastroenterologists and a colorectal surgeon. Adenomatous polyps were clinically mis-sized in 56.6% of cases and overestimated in 71.4%. Among the adenomas reviewed, 22% of mis-sized polyps and 11% of non-mis-sized polyps resulted in an inappropriate surveillance interval.

Conclusions

We found that more than half of ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps are mis-sized and that there is a tendency to overestimate adenoma size among endoscopists. This frequently leads to inappropriate intervals of surveillance colonoscopy.

Integrated Multipoint-Laser Endoscopic Airway Measurements by Transoral Approach

Objectives. Optical and technical characteristics usually do not allow objective endoscopic distance measurements. So far no standardized method for endoscopic distance measurement is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of transoral airway measurements with a multipoint-laser endoscope. Methods. The semirigid endoscope includes a multipoint laser measurement system that projects 49 laser points (wavelength 639 nm, power < 5 mW) into the optical axis of the endoscopic view. Distances, areas, and depths can be measured in real-time. Transoral endoscopic airway measurements were performed on nine human cadavers, which were correlated with CT measurements. Results. The preliminary experiment showed an optimum distance between the endoscope tip and the object of 5 to 6 cm. There was a mean measurement error of 3.26% ± 2.53%. A Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.95 (p = 0.01) was calculated for the laryngeal measurements and of 0.93 (p < 0.01) for the tracheal measurements compared to the CT. Using the Bland-Altman-Plot, the 95% limits of agreement for the laryngeal measurements were satisfactory: −0.76 and 0.93. Conclusions. Integrated multipoint-laser endoscopic measurement is a promising technical supplement, with potential use in diagnostic endoscopy and transoral endoscopic surgery in daily practice.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using a Multitarget Stool DNA Test: Modeling the Effect of the Intertest Interval on Clinical Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

A multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test was recently approved for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for men and women, aged ≥ 50 years, at average risk of CRC. The guidelines currently recommend a 3-year interval for mt-sDNA testing in the absence of empirical data. We used clinical effectiveness modeling to project decreases in CRC incidence and related mortality associated with mt-sDNA screening to help inform interval setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Archimedes model (Archimedes Inc., San Francisco, CA) was used to conduct a 5-arm, virtual, clinical screening study of a population of 200,000 virtual individuals to compare the clinical effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals compared with colonoscopy at 10-year intervals and no screening for a 30-year period. The study endpoints were the decrease in CRC incidence and related mortality of each strategy versus no screening. Cost-effectiveness ratios (US dollars per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of mt-sDNA intervals were calculated versus no screening.

RESULTS

Compared with 10-year colonoscopy, annual mt-sDNA testing produced similar reductions in CRC incidence (65% vs. 63%) and related mortality (73% vs. 72%). mt-sDNA testing at 3-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 57% and CRC mortality by 67%, and mt-sDNA testing at 5-year intervals reduced the CRC incidence by 52% and CRC mortality by 62%. At an average price of $600 per test, the annual, 3-year, and 5-year mt-sDNA screening costs would be $20,178, $11,313, and $7388 per QALY, respectively, compared with no screening.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that screening every 3 years using a multitarget mt-sDNA test provides reasonable performance at acceptable cost.

Clinical study using novel endoscopic system for measuring size of gastrointestinal lesion

AIM: To verify the performance of a lesion size measurement system through a clinical study.

METHODS: Our proposed system, which consists of a conventional endoscope, an optical device, an optical probe, and a personal computer, generates a grid scale to measure the lesion size from an endoscopic image. The width of the grid scale is constantly adjusted according to the distance between the tip of the endoscope and lesion because the lesion size on an endoscopic image changes according to the distance. The shape of the grid scale was corrected to match the distortion of the endoscopic image. The distance was calculated using the amount of laser light reflected from the lesion through an optical probe inserted into the instrument channel of the endoscope. The endoscopist can thus measure the lesion size without contact by comparing the lesion with the size of the grid scale on the endoscopic image. (1) A basic test was performed to verify the relationship between the measurement error e_M and the tilt angle of the endoscope; and (2) The sizes of three colon polyps were measured using our system during endoscopy. These sizes were immediately measured by scale after their removal.

RESULTS: There was no error at α = 0°. In addition, the values of e_M (mean ± SD) were 0.24 ± 0.11 mm (α = 10°), 0.90 ± 0.58 mm (α = 20°) and 2.31 ± 1.41 mm (α = 30°). According to these results, our system has been confirmed to measure accurately when the tilt angle is less than 20°. The measurement error was approximately 1 mm in the clinical study. Therefore, it was concluded that our proposed measurement system was also effective in clinical examinations.

CONCLUSION: By combining simple optical equipment with a conventional endoscope, a quick and accurate system for measuring lesion size was established.

Variable interpretation of polyp size by using open forceps by experienced colonoscopists

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic measurement of colorectal polyps by using open forceps is commonly used in clinical trials but is subject to several sources of error.

OBJECTIVE

Assess error rates in polyp size determination with open forceps at the step of measurement after the forceps are aligned on the polyp.

DESIGN

This was a prospective assessment of 49 gastroenterologists who received training on 10 photographs of polyps with aligned forceps and then measured 10 additional test polyps from photographs. One of the test photographs was excluded because of incorrect forceps alignment.

SETTING

Data analyzed at an academic medical center.

INTERVENTION

Photographs displayed in a webinar.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Description of rates of accurate measurements, including the fraction correct within 50% and 25% margins of error.

RESULTS

A total of 37% of all measurements were correct to the exact millimeter, 34% were larger, and 29% smaller compared with the reference standard. A total of 47 of 49 doctors measured all 9 polyps within 50% of the reference standard, and 21 measured all 9 correctly within a 25% error margin.

LIMITATIONS

Other potential sources of error in open forceps measurement were not evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Open forceps polyp size determination is subject to error at the step of using the fully aligned forceps as a scale for measurement. A margin of error of 50% up or down is needed to prevent this step in size determination from causing errors in polyp matching in clinical trials comparing diagnosis-only imaging to colonoscopy.

Endoscopic mis-sizing of polyps changes colorectal cancer surveillance recommendations

BACKGROUND

Adenomatous polyps greater than 1 cm are defined as advanced adenomas. Inaccurate size estimation can lead to inappropriate surveillance recommendations of colorectal adenomas.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of endoscopic polyp mis-sizing on colorectal cancer surveillance recommendations.

DESIGN

This is a prospective study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in a gastroenterology practice at a US academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance colonoscopies from 2010 to 2011 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Endoscopic size estimates of polyps 10 to 25 mm were compared with postfixation histopathologic polyp measurements for 15 different gastroenterologists. Only adenomatous polyps removed in entirety by snare polypectomy were included in the analysis. Size variation was defined as (endoscopic estimate - histopathologic size)/(histopathologic size). Clinical mis-sizing was defined as a size variation of >33%. The mean size variation, the percentage of clinical mis-sizing, and the percentage of inappropriate surveillance recommendation due to size variation >33% were reported per endoscopist.

RESULTS

: Included for analysis were 4990 procedures from 15 gastroenterologists. A total of 230 polyps from 200 patients met inclusion criteria. The average age was 62.6 years (SD 10.1), and 52% were men. The mean size variation between the endoscopic polyp size estimation and the histopathologic polyp was 73.6% (range of mean size variation, 13%-127%). 62.6% (range, 0%-91%) of included polyps had clinical mis-sizing. Of included polypectomies, 35.2% (range, 0%-67%) resulted in an inappropriate surveillance recommendation due to clinical mis-sizing even after considering histology and synchronous polyps.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in endoscopists' ability to accurately size adenomatous polyps. Some endoscopists rarely mis-size adenomas, and their surveillance recommendations are appropriate in regard to sizing. However, other endoscopists inaccurately size adenomas, and this leads to inappropriate surveillance of colorectal polyps. In this study, approximately 1 of 3 included polypectomies yielded inappropriate surveillance recommendations because of clinical mis-sizing.

The pathologic measurement of polyp size is preferable to the endoscopic estimate

BACKGROUND

There is no standardized technique to measure polyp size. Estimation of polyp size at endoscopy is difficult. Polyp size measurement by pathologists would seem to be an accurate alternative, but tissue fixation may alter polyp size. To evaluate methods of determining polyp size, we compared endoscopists' estimates and pathologists' measurements with measurements made by an independent examiner.

METHODS

Polyps were measured by an independent investigator before and after formalin fixation. The investigator's measurement before fixation (the "gold standard") was compared with the endoscopists' estimates and the pathologists' measurements.

RESULTS

Ten endoscopists removed 61 polyps with a snare in 33 patients: 82% were adenomatous and 72% were pedunculated. Mean size was 0.85 +/- 0.6 cm (SD) (range: 0.3 to 3.6 cm, 26% > or = 1 cm). Polyps remained in formalin for a mean of 239 minutes (46 to 1164 minutes). Polyps neither consistently shrank nor enlarged in formalin (maximum change +/- 0.2 cm, r = 0.99 [p < 0.001]). Interobserver agreement between pathologists' and the investigator's post-formalin measurements showed that 55 of 57 polyps (97%) were within +/- 0.3 cm. Endoscopists inaccurately estimated 11 of 56 polyps (20%) (> 0.3 cm difference from the independent examiner). Polyp size was underestimated in three instances (range 0.5 to 0.9 cm) and overestimated in eight (range 0.4 to 0.8 cm). In 5 of 11 instances (46%), this inaccuracy altered polyp size classification across the 1 cm threshold. Results were not dependent on endoscopist, histology, or polyp location.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Polyp size is not significantly affected by formalin fixation; 2) Endoscopists' estimates of polyp size are often unreliable; and, when possible, (3) Pathologists' measurements of polyp size should be used in clinical trials and in clinical practice.

Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years

BACKGROUND, AIMS, AND PATIENTS: In a prospective follow up and intervention study of colorectal polyps, leaving all polyps less than 10 mm in situ for three years, analysis of redetection rate, growth, and new polyp formation was carried out in 116 patients undergoing annual colonoscopy. The findings in relation to growth and new polyp formation were applied to 58 subjects who received placebo.

RESULTS

Redetection rate varied from 75-90% for each year, and was highest in the rectum and sigmoid colon. There was no net change in size of all polyps in the placebo group, however, polyps less than 5 mm showed a tendency to net growth, and polyps 5-9 mm a tendency to net regression in size, both for adenomas and hyperplastic polyps. This pattern was verified by computerised image analysis. Patients between 50 and 60 years showed evidence of adenoma size increase compared with the older patients, and the same was true for those with multiple adenomas (four to five) compared with those with a single adenoma. The new adenomas were significantly smaller and 71% were located in the right side of the colon. Patients with multiple adenomas had more new polyps at all the follow up examinations than patients with a single adenoma. One patient developed an invasive colorectal carcinoma, which may be evolved from a previously overlooked polyp. Two polyps, showing intramucosal carcinoma after follow up for three years, were completely removed, as judged by endoscopy and histological examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that follow up of unresected colorectal polyps up to 9 mm is safe. The consistency of growth retardation of medium sized polyps suggests extended intervals between the endoscopic follow up examinations, but the increased number of new polyps in the proximal colon indicates total colonoscopy as the examination of choice. The growth retardation of the medium sized polyps may partly explain the discrepancy between the prevalence of polyps and the incidence of colorectal cancer.