Literature DB >> 26522260

Real-Time Characterization of Diminutive Colorectal Polyp Histology Using Narrow-Band Imaging: Implications for the Resect and Discard Strategy.

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.   

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.
Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Advanced Endoscopic Imaging; Colon Polyps; Colorectal Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasia

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26522260      PMCID: PMC4940991          DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  36 in total

1.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

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

Review 2.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

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

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

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

4.  A late Y2K phenomenon: responding to the learning preferences of Generation Y--bridging the digital divide by improving generational dialogue.

Authors:  Myron M LaBan
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.298

5.  A double dissociation of implicit and explicit memory in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Nigel Gopie; Fergus I M Craik; Lynn Hasher
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-03-18

Review 6.  Serrated lesions in colorectal cancer screening: detection, resection, pathology and surveillance.

Authors:  James E East; Michael Vieth; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas.

Authors:  Lynn F Butterly; Michael P Chase; Heiko Pohl; Gale S Fiarman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Accuracy of in vivo colorectal polyp discrimination by using dual-focus high-definition narrow-band imaging colonoscopy.

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

9.  Resect and discard strategy in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study.

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

Review 10.  Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 6.222

View more
  22 in total

1.  Accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis based on narrow-band imaging endocytoscopy for diagnosing colorectal lesions: comparison with experts.

Authors:  Masashi Misawa; Shin-Ei Kudo; Yuichi Mori; Kenichi Takeda; Yasuharu Maeda; Shinichi Kataoka; Hiroki Nakamura; Toyoki Kudo; Kunihiko Wakamura; Takemasa Hayashi; Atsushi Katagiri; Toshiyuki Baba; Fumio Ishida; Haruhiro Inoue; Yukitaka Nimura; Msahiro Oda; Kensaku Mori
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  The Role of Chromoendoscopy in Evaluating Colorectal Dysplasia.

Authors:  Anna M Buchner
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-06

3.  Self-Formation Assessed by Cumulative Summation Test Does Not Reach Recommended Thresholds for Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps ≤ 7 mm.

Authors:  Francisco Javier García-Alonso; Isabel Manzano Santamaría; Antonio Guardiola Arévalo; Rubén Pique Becerra; Amanda Leandro Barros; Noelia de Sande Rivera; Guillermo Moreno Casas; Silvia Arribas Terradillos; Álvaro Llerena Riofrío; Cristian Aitor Escolano Peco; Emma Alguacil Rodríguez; Fernando Bermejo
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Clinical significance of colorectal polyp detection on colonoscopy insertion.

Authors:  Taku Sakamoto; Raji Ramaraj; Yutaka Tomizawa; Hourin Cho; Takahisa Matsuda; Yutaka Saito
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 5.  Current status and limitations of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Alexander Hann; Joel Troya; Daniel Fitting
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Real-Time Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps in the Routine Clinical Practice Using the NICE and WASP Classifications in a Nonacademic Setting.

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

7.  Polyp detection rate in transverse and sigmoid colon significantly increases with longer withdrawal time during screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kashiwagi; Nagamu Inoue; Toshifumi Yoshida; Rieko Bessyo; Kazuaki Yoneno; Hiroyuki Imaeda; Haruhiko Ogata; Takanori Kanai; Yoshinori Sugino; Yasushi Iwao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Polypectomy techniques among gastroenterologists in Norway - a nationwide survey.

Authors:  Ina B Pedersen; Magnus Løberg; Geir Hoff; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Øyvind Holme
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-07-04

9.  Leaving colorectal polyps in place can be achieved with high accuracy using blue light imaging (BLI).

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

10.  Implementation of an optical diagnosis strategy saves costs and does not impair clinical outcomes of a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Authors:  Jasper L A Vleugels; Marjolein J E Greuter; Yark Hazewinkel; Veerle M H Coupé; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.