BACKGROUND: The Cancer Council posits that the size of adenomas is a more robust marker of risk than histological characteristics. The purpose of our study is to assess the accuracy of estimation of polyp size at colonoscopy amongst different levels of endoscopists and compare this with histopathological size. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed. Specimens were included if they were (i) from patients aged 18 years or older, (ii) polyp obtained at colonoscopy, (iii) measured in quantitative units and (iv) the largest eligible polyp per patient. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between the histological size of a polyp and an endoscopist's estimate depended upon seniority level (P = 0.001). Senior consultants tended to overestimate lesion size (P < 0.001), fellows/junior consultants tended to underestimate size (P = 0.010), whilst registrars' estimates demonstrated no systematic difference from histological size (P = 0.518). The ratio of a senior consultant's estimate of polyp size to histological size was on average 74% with their estimates ranging from 31% to 173%. The corresponding estimates are 123% (32-470%) for fellows/junior consultants and 107% (35-334%) for registrars. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that senior consultants are more precise with more junior endoscopists having a great degree of variability in their practice. It is evident that there is a relationship between proceduralist experience and polyp size estimation. It is, therefore, important to consider the ways in which we can mitigate this learning curve and continue to develop technology to improve our accuracy.
BACKGROUND: The Cancer Council posits that the size of adenomas is a more robust marker of risk than histological characteristics. The purpose of our study is to assess the accuracy of estimation of polyp size at colonoscopy amongst different levels of endoscopists and compare this with histopathological size. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed. Specimens were included if they were (i) from patients aged 18 years or older, (ii) polyp obtained at colonoscopy, (iii) measured in quantitative units and (iv) the largest eligible polyp per patient. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between the histological size of a polyp and an endoscopist's estimate depended upon seniority level (P = 0.001). Senior consultants tended to overestimate lesion size (P < 0.001), fellows/junior consultants tended to underestimate size (P = 0.010), whilst registrars' estimates demonstrated no systematic difference from histological size (P = 0.518). The ratio of a senior consultant's estimate of polyp size to histological size was on average 74% with their estimates ranging from 31% to 173%. The corresponding estimates are 123% (32-470%) for fellows/junior consultants and 107% (35-334%) for registrars. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that senior consultants are more precise with more junior endoscopists having a great degree of variability in their practice. It is evident that there is a relationship between proceduralist experience and polyp size estimation. It is, therefore, important to consider the ways in which we can mitigate this learning curve and continue to develop technology to improve our accuracy.