S Y Tung1, C S Wu, M Y Su. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Because the medical management of persons with adenomatous colorectal polyps differs from that of those with hyperplastic polyps, accuracy of diagnosis is essential. This study reports our experience using a magnifying colonoscope combined with indigocarmine dye to diagnose colorectal polyps, emphasizing its ability to differentiate neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions. METHODS: The materials consisted of 175 polyps. A 0.2% indigocarmine solution was sprayed, and the colonoscope zoom apparatus performed a magnified observation after an ordinary colonoscopy identified the lesions. The pit patterns were classified into six categories: I, II, III(L), IIIs, IV, and V according to Kudo's modified classification. RESULTS: The percentages of neoplastic changes in the lesions with pit pattern I, II, III(L), IIIs, IV, and V were 0, 12.2, 69.7, 80, 84.4, and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic lesions was 93.8% and specificity was 64.6% when types I and II represented the pit pattern of nonneoplastic lesions and types III(L), IIIs, IV, and V represented neoplastic lesions. The overall diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions was 80.1%. The diagnostic accuracy is not influenced by the size and shape of the lesions. The six neoplastic lesions that were misjudged to be nonneoplastic were histologically adenoma with only mild atypia. CONCLUSIONS: The pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions by magnifying colonoscopy is a useful and objective tool for differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions of the large bowel. In its current state of development, however, this technique is not a substitute for histology.
OBJECTIVE: Because the medical management of persons with adenomatous colorectal polyps differs from that of those with hyperplastic polyps, accuracy of diagnosis is essential. This study reports our experience using a magnifying colonoscope combined with indigocarmine dye to diagnose colorectal polyps, emphasizing its ability to differentiate neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions. METHODS: The materials consisted of 175 polyps. A 0.2% indigocarmine solution was sprayed, and the colonoscope zoom apparatus performed a magnified observation after an ordinary colonoscopy identified the lesions. The pit patterns were classified into six categories: I, II, III(L), IIIs, IV, and V according to Kudo's modified classification. RESULTS: The percentages of neoplastic changes in the lesions with pit pattern I, II, III(L), IIIs, IV, and V were 0, 12.2, 69.7, 80, 84.4, and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic lesions was 93.8% and specificity was 64.6% when types I and II represented the pit pattern of nonneoplastic lesions and types III(L), IIIs, IV, and V represented neoplastic lesions. The overall diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions was 80.1%. The diagnostic accuracy is not influenced by the size and shape of the lesions. The six neoplastic lesions that were misjudged to be nonneoplastic were histologically adenoma with only mild atypia. CONCLUSIONS: The pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions by magnifying colonoscopy is a useful and objective tool for differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions of the large bowel. In its current state of development, however, this technique is not a substitute for histology.