Endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia with different published classifications: comparative study involving CONECCT classification

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to validate the COlorectal NEoplasia Classification to Choose the Treatment (CONECCT) classification that groups all published criteria (including covert signs of carcinoma) in a single table. Patients and methods For this multicenter comparative study an expert endoscopist created an image library (n = 206 lesions; from hyperplastic to deep invasive cancers) with at least white light Imaging and chromoendoscopy images (virtual ± dye based). Lesions were resected/biopsied to assess histology. Participants characterized lesions using the Paris, Laterally Spreading Tumours, Kudo, Sano, NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification (NICE), Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP), and CONECCT classifications, and assessed the quality of images on a web-based platform. Krippendorff alpha and Cohen’s Kappa were used to assess interobserver and intra-observer agreement, respectively. Answers were cross-referenced with histology. Results Eleven experts, 19 non-experts, and 10 gastroenterology fellows participated. The CONECCT classification had a higher interobserver agreement (Krippendorff alpha = 0.738) than for all the other classifications and increased with expertise and with quality of pictures. CONECCT classification had a higher intra-observer agreement than all other existing classifications except WASP (only describing Sessile Serrated Adenoma Polyp). Specificity of CONECCT IIA (89.2, 95 % CI [80.4;94.9]) to diagnose adenomas was higher than the NICE2 category (71.1, 95 % CI [60.1;80.5]). The sensitivity of Kudo Vi, Sano IIIa, NICE 2 and CONECCT IIC to detect adenocarcinoma were statistically different (P < 0.001): the highest sensitivities were for NICE 2 (84.2 %) and CONECCT IIC (78.9 %), and the lowest for Kudo Vi (31.6 %). Conclusions The CONECCT classification currently offers the best interobserver and intra-observer agreement, including between experts and non-experts. CONECCT IIA is the best classification for excluding presence of adenocarcinoma in a colorectal lesion and CONECCT IIC offers the better compromise for diagnosing superficial adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: outcomes and predictors of recurrence

Background and study aims The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions in Western communities is unclear and its adoption is still limited. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated with colorectal ESD in a tertiary Western center. Patients and methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated by ESD for superficial colorectal lesions between February 2011 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were en-bloc and R0 resection rates, procedural time, adverse events (AEs), and need for surgery. The curative resection rate was assessed for submucosal invasive lesions. Results A total of 327 consecutive patients, median age 69 years (IQR 60–76); 201 men (61.5 %) were included in the analysis. Of the lesions, 90.8 % were resected in an en-bloc fashion. The rate of R0 resection was 83.1 % (217/261) and 44.0 % (29/66) for standard and hybrid ESD techniques, respectively. Submucosal invasion and piecemeal resection independently predicted R1 resections. A total of 18(5.5 %) intra-procedural AEs (perforation:11, bleeding:7) and 12(3.7 %) post-procedural AEs occurred (perforation:2, bleeding: 10). Eighteen adenoma recurrences per 1,000 person-years (15cases, 5.6 %) were detected after a median follow-up time of 36 months. All recurrences were detected within 12 months. No carcinoma recurrences were observed. R1 resection status and intra-procedural AEs independently predicted recurrences with seven vs 150 recurrences per 1,000 person-years in the R0 vs R1 group, respectively. Conclusions Colorectal ESD is a safe and effective option for managing superficial colorectal neoplasia in a Western setting, with short and long-terms outcomes comparable to Eastern studies. En-bloc R0 resection and absence of intra-procedural AEs are associated with reduced risk of recurrence.

Risk of Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Resection in Patients with Continued Warfarin Use Compared to Heparin Replacement: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) guidelines recommend continued warfarin treatment during gastroenterological endoscopic procedures with a high risk of bleeding as an alternative to heparin replacement in patients on warfarin therapy. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of warfarin in colorectal endoscopic resection (ER). The present study is aimed at verifying the risk of bleeding after ER for colorectal neoplasia (CRN) in patients with continued warfarin use. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study using clinical records. We assessed 126 consecutive patients with 159 CRNs who underwent ER (endoscopic mucosal resection, 146 cases; endoscopic submucosal dissection, 13 cases) at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the heparin replacement group (79 patients with 79 CRNs) and the continued warfarin group (47 patients with 80 CRNs). One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare the bleeding rate after ER between the groups. The rate of bleeding after ER was significantly higher in the heparin replacement group than in the continued warfarin group for both before (10.1% vs. 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.0178 ) and after (11.9% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.0211 ) propensity score matching. None of the patients experienced thromboembolic events during the perioperative period. The risk of bleeding after colorectal ER was significantly lower in patients with continued warfarin use than in those with heparin replacement. Our data supports the recommendations of the latest JGES guidelines for patients receiving warfarin therapy.

Definition of competence standards for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 – 5 mm). Methods A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. Recommendation 1 In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. Recommendation 2 In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. Conclusion The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.