Higher adenoma detection, sessile serrated lesion detection and proximal sessile serrated lesion detection are associated with physician specialty and performance on Direct Observation of Procedural Skills

Prevalence and predictive factors of colorectal sessile serrated lesions in younger individuals

BACKGROUND

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are obscured lesions predominantly in the right-sided colon and associated with interval colorectal cancer; however, their prevalence and risk factors among younger individuals remain unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled individuals who underwent index colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the SSL prevalence in the younger (<50 years) and older (≥50 years) age groups, while the secondary outcomes included clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs). Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify predictors.

RESULTS

Of the 9854 eligible individuals, 4712 (47.8%) were categorized into the younger age group. Individuals in the younger age group exhibited lower prevalences of adenomas (22.6% vs. 46.2%; P<0.001) and right-sided adenomas (11.2% vs. 27.2%; P<0.001) compared with their older counterparts. However, both groups exhibited a similar prevalence of SSLs (7.2% vs. 6.5%; P=0.16) and CSSPs (10.3% vs. 10.3%;P=0.96). Multivariable analysis revealed that age 40-49 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.81, 95%CI 1.01-3.23), longer withdrawal time (OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.14-1.20, per minute increment), and endoscopist performance (OR 3.35, 95%CI 2.44-4.58) were independent predictors of SSL detection in the younger age group. No significant correlation was observed between adenoma and SSL detection rates among endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

SSLs are not uncommon among younger individuals. Moreover, diligent effort and expertise are of paramount importance in SSL detection. Future studies should explore the clinical significance of SSLs in individuals of younger age.

Sessile serrated polyp detection rates after fecal immunochemical test or multitarget stool DNA test: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Published studies report a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FIT-DNA as compared with FIT. Data are less replete about the performance of stool-based tests for sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of FIT and FIT-DNA testing for SSP detection rate (SSPDR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for follow up of positive noninvasive tests. Methods A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases (until September 2022) was performed to identify studies reporting SSPDR in patients with positive FIT or FIT-DNA tests. The outcome was overall colonoscopy detection of any SSPs and advanced serrated polyps (ASP: SSP ≥ 10 mm and/or dysplasia). Results Included were 482,405 patients (52.4% females) with a mean age of 62.3 ± 4.4 years from 23 studies. The pooled SSPDR for all positive stool-based tests was 5.3% and higher for FIT-DNA (15.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3-25.7) versus FIT (4.1%, 95% CI 3.0-5.6; P = 0.0002). The overall pooled ASP detection rate was 1.4% (95% CI 0.81-2.3) and higher for FIT-DNA (3.8 %, 95% CI 1.7-8.6) compared with FIT (0.71%, 95% CI 0.36-1.4; P <0.01). SSPDR with FIT-DNA was also significantly higher than FIT when the FIT cutoff was >10 ug/g and in FIT-positive patients in studies conducted in North America ( P <0.05). Conclusions FIT-DNA outperformed FIT in both SSP and ASP detection including FIT with a lower threshold cutoff of >10 ug/g. Further comparative studies are needed to assess the impact of our findings on colorectal cancer reduction.

Accuracy and Inter-observer Agreement Among Endoscopists for Visual Identification of Colorectal Polyps Using Endoscopy Images

BACKGROUND

It is essential to accurately distinguish small benign hyperplastic colon polyps (HP) from sessile serrated lesions (SSL) or adenomatous polyps (TA) based on endoscopic appearances. Our objective was to determine the accuracy and inter-observer agreements for the endoscopic diagnosis of small polyps.

METHODS

High-quality endoscopic images of 30 small HPs, SSLs, and TAs were used randomly to create two-timed PowerPoint slide sets-one with and another one without information on polyp size and location. Seven endoscopists viewed the slides on two separate occasions 90 days apart, identified the polyp type, and graded their confidence level. Overall and polyp-specific accuracies were assessed for the group and individual endoscopists. Chi-square tests and Kappa (κ) statistics were used to compare differences as appropriate.

RESULTS

When polyp size and location were provided, overall accuracy was 67.1% for TAs, 50.0% for SSLs, and 41.4% for HPs; the corresponding accuracies were 60%, 44.3%, and 34.3% when polyp size and location were withheld (p < .001). Inter-observer agreement was moderate for TAs (κ = 0.50) and fair for SSLs (κ = 0.26) and HPs (κ = 0.29); the corresponding inter-observer agreements were 0.44, 0.31, and 0.17 with polyp size and location withheld. Accuracy was not affected by knowledge of polyp size, location, or confidence level. Endoscopists with ≥ 10 years (vs. < 10 years) of colonoscopy experience had marginally higher (56% vs. 40%, p = 0.05) accuracy for SSL diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to distinguish between small TAs, SSLs, and HPs on their endoscopic appearance is poor regardless of the endoscopists' knowledge of polyp size and location.