Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate is correlated with adenoma detection rate

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Cause, Epidemiology, and Histology of Polyps and Pathways to Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-associated mortality, with a lifetime risk of approximately 4% to 5%. Colorectal cancer develops from the sequential acquisition of defined genetic mutations in the colonic epithelium. Tumorigenesis from normal tissue to cancer occurs largely through 3 pathways: the chromosomal instability pathway, the microsatellite instability pathway, and the sessile serrated pathway. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality have decreased by approximately 35% since the beginning of screening programs in the 1990s, although other factors such as use of aspirin for coronary disease prevention and decreased smoking rates may also be important. In this review, we discuss the etiology, epidemiology, and histology of colorectal polyps and cancer.

Impact of comprehensive optical diagnosis training using Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis classification on detection of adenoma and sessile serrated lesion

OBJECTIVES

Many interventions have been attempted to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR), and one of these interventions is educational training to recognize polyp characteristics. This study aimed to investigate the change in polyp detection rates of endoscopists before and after comprehensive training through the Gangnam-Real Time Optical Diagnosis (Gangnam-READI) program.

METHODS

Fifteen gastroenterologists participated in a 1-year comprehensive training program that consisted of ex vivo and in vivo training that encompasses knowledge and skills in endoscopic characterization of colonic polyps using the Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classification. We evaluated the impact of the training program by comparing the overall and individual ADR and SDR 6 months before and after the training.

RESULTS

Overall, 18,280 polyps (9337 adenomas and 855 sessile serrated lesion) were collected. The optical diagnosis training had no significant impact on the difference in ADR after training compared to before training (47.7% vs. 46.5%, P = 0.608). A tendency for a decrease in ADR variance was noted among the endoscopists after training (74.9 vs. 32.7, P = 0.121). The overall pre-training period SDR was 4.5% and showed a statistically significant increase to 5.6%, 8.0%, and 7.1% in the first and second half of the training period, and post-training period, respectively (P = 0.003). The optical diagnosis training did not decrease variance in SDR (8.9 vs. 8.8, P = 0.985).

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive optical diagnosis training with WASP classification has a significant impact on increasing the overall SDR of expert endoscopists.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

A Polyp Worth Removing: A Paradigm for Measuring Colonoscopy Quality and Performance of Novel Technologies for Polyp Detection

Leaving no significant polyp behind while avoiding risks due to unnecessary resections is a commonsense strategy to safely and effectively prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy. It also alludes to polyps worth removing and, therefore, worth finding. The majority of "worthy" precancerous polyps are adenomas, which for over 2 decades, have received the most attention in performance research and metrics. Consequently, the detection rate of adenomas is currently the only validated, outcome-based measure of colonoscopy demonstrated to correlate with reduced risk of postcolonoscopy CRC. However, a third or more of postcolonoscopy CRCs originate from sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), which are notoriously difficult to find, diagnose and completely resect. Among serrated polyps, the agreement among pathologists differentiating SSPs from non-neoplastic hyperplastic polyps is moderate at best. This lack of ground truth precludes SSPs from consideration in primary metrics of colonoscopy quality or performance of novel polyp detection technologies. By instead leveraging the distinct endoscopic and clinical features of serrated polyps, including those considered important due to proximal location and larger size, clinically significant serrated polyps represent serrated polyps worth removing, enriched with subtle precancerous SSPs. With the explosion of technologies to assist polyp detection, now is the time to broaden benchmarks to include clinically significant serrated polypss alongside adenomas, a measure that is relevant both for assessing the performance of endoscopists, and for assessing new polyp detection technologies.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR.

RESULTS

The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r = 0.44; P = .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines

The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods  Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I ² ). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results  A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %-3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I ²  = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %-3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %-11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias ( P  < 0.01). Conclusion  Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.

PROXIMAL SERRATED POLYP DETECTION RATE: A COMPLEMENTARY QUALITY INDICATOR FOR ADENOMA DETECTION RATE?

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends on quality indicators, which adenoma detection rate (ADR) being the most important. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate (pSPDR) has been studied as a potential quality indicator for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to analyze and compare the difference in ADR and pSPDR between patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and an unselected population with other indications for colonoscopy, including surveillance and diagnosis.

METHODS

This is a historical cohort of patients who underwent colonoscopy in the digestive endoscopy service of a tertiary hospital. Out of 1554 colonoscopies performed, 573 patients were excluded. The remaining 981 patients were divided into two groups: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy (n=428; 43.6%); patients with other indications including surveillance and diagnosis (n=553; 56.4%).

RESULTS

Adenoma detection rate of the group with other indications (50.6%) was higher than that of the screening group (44.6%; P=0.03). In regarding pSPDR, there was no difference between pSPDR in both groups (screening 13.6%; other indications 13.7%; P=0.931). There was no significant difference in the mean age (P=0.259) or in the proportion of men and women (P=0.211) between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Proximal serrated polyp detection rate showed an insignificant difference between groups with different indications and could be used as a complementary indicator to adenoma detection rate. This could benefit colonoscopists with low colonoscopy volume or low volume of screening colonoscopies.

Artificial intelligence for non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms

The miss rate of flat advanced colorectal neoplasia is still unacceptably high, especially in the Western setting, notwithstanding the widespread implementation of quality improvement programs and training. It is well known that flat morphology is associated with miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, and that this subset of lesions often shows a more aggressive biological behaviour. Artificial intelligence (AI) applied to the detection of colorectal neoplasia has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate, consistently across all lesion sizes and locations in the colon. However, there is still uncertainty whether AI can reduce the miss rate of flat advanced neoplasia, mainly because all published trials report a low number of flat colorectal lesions in their training sets, and this could reduce AI accuracy for this subset of lesions. In addition, flat lesions have different morphologies with variable prevalence and potentially different accuracy in their detection. For example, the subtle appearance and rarer frequency of a non-granular laterally spreading tumor (LST) could be much harder to identify than a granular mixed LST. In this review, we present a summary of the evidence on the role of AI in the identification of colorectal flat neoplasia, with a focus on data regarding presence of LSTs in the training/validation sets of the AI systems currently available on the market.

Detection and clinical characteristics of serrated polyps and conventional adenomas between patients in the outpatient and physical checkup unit receiving colonoscopy

PURPOSE

The sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) among different colonoscopy indications from daily practice has not been fully understood. This study aimed to evaluate the detection and clinical characteristics of serrated polyps and conventional adenomas between outpatient department (OPD) and physical checkup unit (PCU) patients receiving colonoscopy.

METHODS

The data for this retrospective study were collected between 2016 and 2017 at Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan. A total of 7047 individuals were included, and information on polyp and adenoma detection was extracted from the colonoscopy reports.

RESULTS

The adenoma detection rate, the SSA/PDR, and the detection rate of traditional serrated adenoma (TSA) were 32.2%, 0.60%, and 0.50%, respectively. Risk analysis revealed no significant difference (p = 0.095) in SSA/PDR between individuals < 50 years and ≥ 50 years, and no trend of increased SSA/PDR as age increased was observed (p = 0.320). SSA/P and TSA had higher risks for synchronous advanced neoplasia than conventional adenoma, but with proximal hyperplastic polyps lower (p < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference of SSA/PDR between OPD and PCU patients was observed (p = 1.000); however, the age of SSA/P was significantly older in OPD than in PCU patients (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

The detection rates of CA and TSA were associated with age groups; however, SSA/PDR was insignificantly higher among individuals aged < 50 years than those with other age groups. In addition, SSA/PDR between OPD and PCU patients was not significantly found in daily practice of colonoscopies.

Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) have been increasingly recognized as precursors to colorectal cancer. Unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR), there is currently no agreed-upon benchmark for SSL detection rate (SSLDR), and data on factors that impact SSL detection are limited. We aimed to identify patient, endoscopist, and procedural factors associated with SSL and adenoma detection.

METHODS

We used a single-center electronic endoscopy database to identify all patients ages ≥ 50 years who underwent outpatient screening colonoscopy from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2018. Univariable Chi-square analysis was used to determine patient, endoscopist, and procedure-related factors associated with SSL or adenoma detection. We used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, accounting for clustering by individual endoscopist, to determine factors independently associated with ADR and SSLDR.

RESULTS

We identified 10,538 unique patients who underwent colonoscopy performed by 28 endoscopists. Overall SSLDR was 2.2%, and overall ADR was 29.1%. On multivariable analysis, patient age, sex, BMI, smoking, endoscopist withdrawal time, and year of colonoscopy were independent predictors of ADR. Smoking and year of colonoscopy were independent predictors of SSLDR. Sub-optimal bowel preparation was inversely associated with SSL detection but not ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study of patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy, overall SSLDR was low, indicating that methods for increasing SSLDR are needed. Our findings suggest that endoscopists may take into account risk factors for SSLs, such as smoking history, and recognize that the detection of such lesions, even more so than for adenomas, is dependent on optimal bowel preparation.

Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The audit process may help improve performance indicators for colonoscopy quality but it is unclear whether this is sustained over several years.

METHODS

44138 procedures for 28 endoscopists from 2004 to 2019 were analysed for polyp detection rate and withdrawal time. From 2012, 14 endoscopists were analysed with additional data on polyp histology and number of polyps removed.

RESULTS

Polyp detection increased from 40.7% in 2004 to 62.2% in 2019; removal of polyps>1 cm remained constant (11%). Adenoma detection rate was 25.8% in 2012 and 28.3% in 2019. Sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection rate increased from 4.5% to 14.7%; most of the increase was in the first 2 years of the histology part of the audit. There was a significant correlation of adenoma detection rate with mean number of adenomas (r=0.72, p=0.004) and a significant correlation of SSP detection with mean number of SSPs (r=0.85, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The audit process appears to encourage a higher rate of polyp detection. This was due to increased detection of smaller polyps and increased detection of SSPs.

Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) could account for a substantial proportion of colorectal cancers. We aimed to increase clarity on SSP prevalence and clinical features.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies published in English since 2000. We included studies of different populations (United States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definitions, adenoma), outcomes (prevalence, clinical features), and study designs (cross-sectional). Random-effects regression was used for meta-analysis where possible.

RESULTS

We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies. SSP prevalence varied by world region, from 2.6% in Asia (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-5.9) to 10.5% in Australia (95% CI, 2.8-18.2). Prevalence values did not differ significantly between the United States and Europe (P = .51); the pooled prevalence was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4-5.8), and SSPs accounted for 9.4% of polyps with malignant potential (95% CI, 6.6-12.3). The mean prevalence was higher when assessed through high-performance examinations (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.0-14.2; P = .04) and with an alternative definition of clinically relevant serrated polyps (12.3%; 95% CI, 9.3-15.4; P < .001). Increases in prevalence with age were not statistically significant, and prevalence did not differ significantly by sex. Compared with adenomas, a higher proportion of SSPs were solitary (69.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-92.1; P = .08), with diameters of 10 mm or more (19.3%; 95% CI, 12.4-26.2; P = .13) and were proximal (71.5%; 95% CI, 63.5-79.5; P = .008). The mean ages for detection of SSP without dysplasia, with any or low-grade dysplasia, and with high-grade dysplasia were 60.8 years, 65.6 years, and 70.2 years, respectively. The range for proportions of SSPs with dysplasia was 3.7%-42.9% across studies, possibly reflecting different study populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found that SSPs are relatively uncommon compared with adenoma. More research is needed on appropriate diagnostic criteria, variations in detection, and long-term risk.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates

Introduction

Quality measures for colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been proposed to be surveilled for ensuring minimum standards. However, its direct measurement is time consuming and often neglected. Extrapolating ADR and other quality measures from polyp detection rate (PDR) can be a pragmatic alternative.

Objective

To determine quotients for estimating ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) from PDR in an Australian cohort.

Methods

Consecutive adult patient colonoscopies during a 1-year period were retrospectively assessed in a single Australian tertiary endoscopy center. Adenoma detection quotient (ADQ) and SSA/P detection quotient (SSA/P-DQ) were defined as the division of ADR and SSA/P-DR by PDR, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of procedures to achieve a stable cumulative ADQ and SSA/P-DQ. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of ADQ and SSA/P-DQ in different subsets.

Results

In total, 2,657 colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists in 2016. The ADR, SSA/P-DR, and PDR found were 32.2, 6.7, and 47.3%, respectively. The ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values found were 0.68 and 0.14, respectively. After approximately 500 procedures, both ADQ and SSA/P-DQ became stable. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the prediction of ADR from ADQ was excellent for all endoscopists that performed >177 procedures in that year (ICC 0.84).

Conclusions

ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values were consistent when over 500 procedures were analyzed. ADQ had an excellent correlation with ADR when >177 procedures per endoscopist were evaluated.

Terminology, Molecular Features, Epidemiology, and Management of Serrated Colorectal Neoplasia

In addition to the adenoma to carcinoma sequence, colorectal carcinogenesis can occur via the serrated pathway. Studies have focused on clarification of categories and molecular features of serrated polyps, as well as endoscopic detection and risk assessment. Guidelines from the World Health Organization propose assigning serrated polyps to categories of hyperplastic polyps, traditional serrated adenomas, and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). Traditional serrated adenomas and SSLs are precursors to colorectal cancer. The serrated pathway is characterized by mutations in RAS and RAF, disruptions to the Wnt signaling pathway, and widespread methylation of CpG islands. Epidemiology studies of serrated polyps have been hampered by inconsistencies in terminology and reporting, but the prevalence of serrated class polyps is 20%-40% in average-risk individuals; most serrated polyps detected are hyperplastic. SSLs, the most common premalignant serrated subtype, and are found in up to 15% of average-risk patients by high-detecting endoscopists. Variations in rate of endoscopic detection of serrated polyps indicate the need for careful examination, with adequate bowel preparation and sufficient withdrawal times. Risk factors for SSLs include white race, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, and alcohol intake. Patients with serrated polyps, particularly SSLs and traditional serrated adenomas, have an increased risk of synchronous and metachronous advanced neoplasia. Surveillance guidelines vary among countries, but SSLs and proximal hyperplastic polyps require special attention in assignment of surveillance interval-especially in light of concerns regarding incomplete detection and resection.