Swati G Patel1, Philip Schoenfeld2, Hyungjin Myra Kim2, Emily K Ward3, Ajay Bansal4, Yeonil Kim2, Lindsay Hosford5, Aimee Myers2, Stephanie Foster2, Jenna Craft6, Samuel Shopinski2, Robert H Wilson5, Dennis J Ahnen5, Amit Rastogi4, Sachin Wani5. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: Swati.Patel@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Gastroenterology of the Rockies, Boulder, Colorado. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Narrow-band imaging (NBI) allows real-time histologic classification of colorectal polyps. We investigated whether endoscopists without prior training in NBI can achieve the following thresholds recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: for diminutive colorectal polyps characterized with high confidence, a ≥90% negative predictive value for adenomas in the rectosigmoid and a ≥90% agreement in surveillance intervals. METHODS: Twenty-six endoscopists from 2 tertiary care centers underwent standardized training in NBI interpretation. Endoscopists made real-time predictions of diminutive colorectal polyp histology and surveillance interval predictions based on NBI. Their performance was evaluated by comparing predicted with actual findings from histologic analysis. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess predictors of performance. Cumulative summation analysis was used to characterize learning curves. RESULTS: The endoscopists performed 1451 colonoscopies and made 3012 diminutive polyp predictions (74.3% high confidence) using NBI. They made 898 immediate post-procedure surveillance interval predictions. An additional 505 surveillance intervals were determined with histology input. The overall negative predictive value for high-confidence characterizations in the rectosigmoid was 94.7% (95% confidence interval: 92.6%-96.8%) and the surveillance interval agreement was 91.2% (95% confidence interval: 89.7%-92.7%). Overall, 97.0% of surveillance interval predictions would have brought patients back on time or early. High-confidence characterization was the strongest predictor of accuracy (odds ratio = 3.42; 95% confidence interval: 2.72-4.29; P < .001). Performance improved over time, however, according to cumulative summation analysis, only 7 participants (26.9%) identified adenomas with sufficient sensitivity such that further auditing is not required. CONCLUSIONS: With standardized training, gastroenterologists without prior expertise in NBI were able to meet the negative predictive value and surveillance interval thresholds set forth by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The majority of disagreement in surveillance interval brought patients back early. Performance improves with time, but most endoscopists will require ongoing auditing of performance. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02441998.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Narrow-band imaging (NBI) allows real-time histologic classification of colorectal polyps. We investigated whether endoscopists without prior training in NBI can achieve the following thresholds recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: for diminutive colorectal polyps characterized with high confidence, a ≥90% negative predictive value for adenomas in the rectosigmoid and a ≥90% agreement in surveillance intervals. METHODS: Twenty-six endoscopists from 2 tertiary care centers underwent standardized training in NBI interpretation. Endoscopists made real-time predictions of diminutive colorectal polyp histology and surveillance interval predictions based on NBI. Their performance was evaluated by comparing predicted with actual findings from histologic analysis. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess predictors of performance. Cumulative summation analysis was used to characterize learning curves. RESULTS: The endoscopists performed 1451 colonoscopies and made 3012 diminutive polyp predictions (74.3% high confidence) using NBI. They made 898 immediate post-procedure surveillance interval predictions. An additional 505 surveillance intervals were determined with histology input. The overall negative predictive value for high-confidence characterizations in the rectosigmoid was 94.7% (95% confidence interval: 92.6%-96.8%) and the surveillance interval agreement was 91.2% (95% confidence interval: 89.7%-92.7%). Overall, 97.0% of surveillance interval predictions would have brought patients back on time or early. High-confidence characterization was the strongest predictor of accuracy (odds ratio = 3.42; 95% confidence interval: 2.72-4.29; P < .001). Performance improved over time, however, according to cumulative summation analysis, only 7 participants (26.9%) identified adenomas with sufficient sensitivity such that further auditing is not required. CONCLUSIONS: With standardized training, gastroenterologists without prior expertise in NBI were able to meet the negative predictive value and surveillance interval thresholds set forth by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The majority of disagreement in surveillance interval brought patients back early. Performance improves with time, but most endoscopists will require ongoing auditing of performance. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02441998.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Michael B Wallace; Julia E Crook; Susan Coe; Vivian Ussui; Estela Staggs; Cristina Almansa; Mihir K Patel; Ernest Bouras; John Cangemi; Andrew Keaveny; Michael Picco; Douglas Riegert-Johnson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Paggi; E Rondonotti; A Amato; V Terruzzi; G Imperiali; G Mandelli; N Terreni; N Lenoci; G Spinzi; F Radaelli Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Joana Castela; Susana Mão de Ferro; Isadora Rosa; Pedro Lage; Sara Ferreira; João Pereira Silva; João Cortez Pinto; Rita Vale Rodrigues; Joana Moleiro; Isabel Claro; Susana Esteves; António Dias Pereira Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-01-10
Authors: Helmut Neumann; Helmut Neumann Sen; Michael Vieth; Raf Bisschops; Florian Thieringer; Khan F Rahman; Thomas Gamstätter; Gian Eugenio Tontini; Peter R Galle Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.623