AIM: To examine performances regarding prediction of polyp histology using high-definition (HD) i-scan in a group of endoscopists with varying levels of experience. METHODS: We used a digital library of HD i-scan still images, comprising twin pictures (surface enhancement and tone enhancement), collected at our university hospital. We defined endoscopic features of adenomatous and non-adenomatous polyps, according to the following parameters: color, surface pattern and vascular pattern. We familiarized the participating endoscopists on optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using a 20-min didactic training session. All endoscopists were asked to evaluate an image set of 50 colorectal polyps with regard to polyp histology. We classified the diagnoses into high confidence (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist could assign a diagnosis with certainty) and low confidence diagnoses (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist preferred to send the polyp for formal histology). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy per endoscopist/image were computed and differences between groups tested using independent-samples t tests. High vs low confidence diagnoses were compared using the paired-samples t test. RESULTS: Eleven endoscopists without previous experience on optical diagnosis evaluated a total of 550 images (396 adenomatous, 154 non-adenomatous). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing adenomas were 79.3%, 85.7% and 81.1%, respectively. No significant differences were found between gastroenterologists and trainees regarding performances of optical diagnosis (mean accuracy 78.0% vs 82.9%, P = 0.098). Diminutive lesions were predicted with a lower mean accuracy as compared to non-diminutive lesions (74.2% vs 93.1%, P = 0.008). A total of 446 (81.1%) diagnoses were made with high confidence. High confidence diagnoses corresponded to a significantly higher mean accuracy than low confidence diagnoses (84.0% vs 64.3%, P = 0.008). A total of 319 (58.0%) images were evaluated as having excellent quality. Considering excellent quality images in conjunction with high confidence diagnosis, overall accuracy increased to 92.8%. CONCLUSION: After a single training session, endoscopists with varying levels of experience can already provide optical diagnosis with an accuracy of 84.0%.
AIM: To examine performances regarding prediction of polyp histology using high-definition (HD) i-scan in a group of endoscopists with varying levels of experience. METHODS: We used a digital library of HD i-scan still images, comprising twin pictures (surface enhancement and tone enhancement), collected at our university hospital. We defined endoscopic features of adenomatous and non-adenomatous polyps, according to the following parameters: color, surface pattern and vascular pattern. We familiarized the participating endoscopists on optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using a 20-min didactic training session. All endoscopists were asked to evaluate an image set of 50 colorectal polyps with regard to polyp histology. We classified the diagnoses into high confidence (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist could assign a diagnosis with certainty) and low confidence diagnoses (i.e., cases in which the endoscopist preferred to send the polyp for formal histology). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy per endoscopist/image were computed and differences between groups tested using independent-samples t tests. High vs low confidence diagnoses were compared using the paired-samples t test. RESULTS: Eleven endoscopists without previous experience on optical diagnosis evaluated a total of 550 images (396 adenomatous, 154 non-adenomatous). Mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing adenomas were 79.3%, 85.7% and 81.1%, respectively. No significant differences were found between gastroenterologists and trainees regarding performances of optical diagnosis (mean accuracy 78.0% vs 82.9%, P = 0.098). Diminutive lesions were predicted with a lower mean accuracy as compared to non-diminutive lesions (74.2% vs 93.1%, P = 0.008). A total of 446 (81.1%) diagnoses were made with high confidence. High confidence diagnoses corresponded to a significantly higher mean accuracy than low confidence diagnoses (84.0% vs 64.3%, P = 0.008). A total of 319 (58.0%) images were evaluated as having excellent quality. Considering excellent quality images in conjunction with high confidence diagnosis, overall accuracy increased to 92.8%. CONCLUSION: After a single training session, endoscopists with varying levels of experience can already provide optical diagnosis with an accuracy of 84.0%.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Colorectal polyps; High-definition i-scan; Optical diagnosis; Training
Authors: Ana Ignjatovic; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; James E East; Adam Haycock; Paul Bassett; Pradeep Bhandari; Ripple Man; Noriko Suzuki; Brian P Saunders Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J Belsey; C Crosta; O Epstein; W Fischbach; P Layer; F Parente; M Halphen Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Amit Rastogi; Dayna S Early; Neil Gupta; Ajay Bansal; Vikas Singh; Michael Ansstas; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda; Christine E Hovis; Srinivas Gaddam; Sachin B Wani; Steven A Edmundowicz; Prateek Sharma Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Manon van der Vlugt; Sascha Corrie van Doorn; Junfeng Wang; Barbara Aj Bastiaansen; Lowewijk Aa Brosens; Paul Fockens; Evelien Dekker Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-05-19
Authors: Timo Rath; Gian E Tontini; Andreas Nägel; Michael Vieth; Steffen Zopf; Claudia Günther; Arthur Hoffman; Markus F Neurath; Helmut Neumann Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Entcho Klenske; Steffen Zopf; Clemens Neufert; Andreas Nägel; Jürgen Siebler; Jürgen Gschossmann; Steffen Mühldorfer; Lukas Pfeifer; Sarah Fischer; Francesco Vitali; Marietta Iacucci; Subrata Ghosh; Michelle G Rath; Peter Klare; Gian E Tontini; Markus F Neurath; Timo Rath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240