AIMTo assess the utility of modified Sano′s (MS) vs the narrow band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification in differentiating colorectal polyps.METHODSPatients undergoing colonoscopy between 2013 and 2015 were enrolled in this trial. Based on the MS or the NICE classifications, patients were randomised for real-time endoscopic diagnosis. This was followed by biopsies, endoscopic or surgical resection. The endoscopic diagnosis was then compared to the final (blinded) histopathology. The primary endpoint was the sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of differentiating neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps (MS II/IIo / IIIa / IIIb vs I or NICE 1 vs 2/3). The secondary endpoints were “endoscopic resectability” (MS II/IIo/IIIa vs I/IIIb or NICE 2 vs 1/3), NPV for diminutive distal adenomas and prediction of post-polypectomy surveillance intervals.RESULTSA total of 348 patients were evaluated. The Sn, Sp, PPV and NPV in differentiating neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic polyps were, 98.9%, 85.7%, 98.2% and 90.9% for MS; and 99.1%, 57.7%, 95.4% and 88.2% for NICE, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for MS was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.86-0.98); and AUC for NICE was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.69, 0.88). The Sn, Sp, PPV and NPV in predicting “endoscopic resectability” were 98.9%, 86.1%, 97.8% and 92.5% for MS; and 98.6%, 66.7%, 94.7% and 88.9% for NICE, respectively. The AUC for MS was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.87-0.98); and the AUC for NICE was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.75-0.90). The AUC values were statistically different for both comparisons (P = 0.0165 and P = 0.0420, respectively). The accuracy for diagnosis of sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) with high confidence utilizing MS classification was 93.2%. The differentiation of SSA/P from other lesions achieved Sp, Sn, PPV and NPV of 87.2%, 91.5%, 89.6% and 98.6%, respectively. The NPV for predicting adenomas in diminutive rectosigmoid polyps (n = 150) was 96.6% and 95% with MS and NICE respectively. The calculated accuracy of post-polypectomy surveillance for MS group was 98.2% (167 out of 170) and for NICE group was 92.1% (139 out of 151).CONCLUSIONThe MS classification outperformed the NICE classification in differentiating neoplastic polyps and predicting endoscopic resectability. Both classifications met ASGE PIVI thresholds.

No abstract

Background and Aim: Commonly used classifications for colorectal lesions (CLs) include the Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) and Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classifications. However, both lack a sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) category. This has been addressed by the modified Sano's (MS) and Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classifications. This study aims to compare the accuracy of wNICE and wJNET (WASP added to both) with the stand-alone MS classification. Methods: Patients undergoing colonoscopy at an Australian tertiary hospital who had at least one CL detected were prospectively enrolled. In the exploratory phase, CLs were characterized in real time with NBI and magnification using all classifications. In the validation phase, CLs were assessed with both NBI and Blue Laser Imaging (BLI) by four external endoscopists in Japan. The primary outcome was the comparison of wJNET and MS. Secondary outcomes included comparisons among all classifications and the calculation of interrater reliability. Results: A total of 483 CLs were evaluated in real time in the exploratory phase, and four sets of 30 CL images (80 on NBI and 40 on BLI) were scored in the validation phase. For high-confidence diagnoses, MS accuracy was superior to wJNET in both the exploratory (86% vs 79%, P < 0.05) and validation (85% vs 69%, P < 0.05) phases. The interrater reliability was substantial for all classifications (κ = 0.74, 0.69, and 0.63 for wNICE, wJNET, and MS, respectively). Conclusions: MS classification achieved the highest accuracy in both the exploratory and validation phases. MS can differentiate serrated and adenomatous polyps as a stand-alone classification.

Introduction: Quality measures for colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been proposed to be surveilled for ensuring minimum standards. However, its direct measurement is time consuming and often neglected. Extrapolating ADR and other quality measures from polyp detection rate (PDR) can be a pragmatic alternative. Objective: To determine quotients for estimating ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) from PDR in an Australian cohort. Methods: Consecutive adult patient colonoscopies during a 1-year period were retrospectively assessed in a single Australian tertiary endoscopy center. Adenoma detection quotient (ADQ) and SSA/P detection quotient (SSA/P-DQ) were defined as the division of ADR and SSA/P-DR by PDR, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of procedures to achieve a stable cumulative ADQ and SSA/P-DQ. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of ADQ and SSA/P-DQ in different subsets. Results: In total, 2,657 colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists in 2016. The ADR, SSA/P-DR, and PDR found were 32.2, 6.7, and 47.3%, respectively. The ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values found were 0.68 and 0.14, respectively. After approximately 500 procedures, both ADQ and SSA/P-DQ became stable. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the prediction of ADR from ADQ was excellent for all endoscopists that performed >177 procedures in that year (ICC 0.84). Conclusions: ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values were consistent when over 500 procedures were analyzed. ADQ had an excellent correlation with ADR when >177 procedures per endoscopist were evaluated.

Background and Aim Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric in colonoscopy. However, there is conflicting evidence around factors that influence ADR. This study aims to investigate the effect of time of day and endoscopist background on ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P‐DR) for screening colonoscopies. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Primary outcome was the effect of time of day and endoscopist specialty on screening ADR. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of the same factors on SSA/P‐DR and other metrics and collinearity of ADR and SSA/P‐DR. Linear regression models were used for association between ADR, time of day, and endoscopist background. Bowel preparation, endoscopist, session, patient age, and gender were adjusted for. Linear regression model was also used for comparing ADR and SSA/P‐DR. Chi‐square was used for difference of proportions. Results Two thousand six hundred fifty‐seven colonoscopies, of which 558 were screening colonoscopies, were performed. The adjusted mean ADR (screening) was 36.8% in the morning compared with 30.5% in the afternoon (P < 0.0001) and was 36.8% for gastroenterologists compared with 30.4% for surgeons (P < 0.0001). For every 1‐h delay in commencing the procedure, there was a reduction in mean ADR by 3.4%. Using a linear regression model, a statistically significant positive association was found between ADR and SSA/P‐DR (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Morning and afternoon sessions and gastroenterologists and surgeons achieved the minimum standards recommended for ADR. Afternoon lists and surgeons were associated with a lower ADR compared with morning and gastroenterologists, respectively. Additionally, SSA/P‐DR showed collinearity with ADR.