Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Resect and Discard Approach to Colon Polyps: Real-World Applicability Among Academic and Community Gastroenterologists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

“Resect and discard” (RD) is a new paradigm for management of diminutive polyps.

Aim

To compare concordance of surveillance interval recommendations and diagnostic performance between RD and standard of care in a hospital outpatient department with both academic and community gastroenterologists.

Methods

Prospective, observational study conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy center over 12 months. Patients with diminutive polyps on screening or surveillance colonoscopy were included. Histology predictions for all diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) were made based on endoscopic imaging. Concordance of recommended surveillance intervals and diagnostic performance of histology predictions were compared to histopathological review.

Results

A total of 606 diminutive polyps were found in 315 patients (mean age 62.4 years, 49 % female). Histological prediction was made in 95.7 % of polyps (97.4 % of patients), with high confidence in 74.3 %. The concordance for surveillance intervals was 82.1 % compared to histopathological review and was similar between community and academic gastroenterologists (80.2 vs. 76.3 %, p = 0.38). Overall, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of histological predictions made with high confidence were 0.81, 0.36, and 77.1 %. Predictions made with narrow-band imaging (NBI) had lower accuracy (73.9 % with NBI vs. 82.5 % with high-definition white light (HWDL) only, p = 0.017) as well as lower prediction confidence (score of 7.6 with NBI vs. 8.6 with HDWL only, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our surveillance interval concordance was below the 90 % threshold deemed acceptable by the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations statement. Diagnostic performance using optical imaging to predict histology was equal between community and academic endoscopists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 19752008. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/results_single/sect_01_table.01.pdf, based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2011.

  2. Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer. 2007;110:2119–2152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J, et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1100–1105.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Butterfly LF, Chase MP, Pohl H, et al. Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:343–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kessler WR, Imperiale TF, Klein RW, et al. A quantitative assessment of the risks and cost savings of forgoing histologic examination of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy.. 2011;43:683–691.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:865–869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M, et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:419–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1174–1181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rastogi A, Keighley J, Singh V, et al. High accuracy of narrow band imaging without magnification for the real-time characterization of polyp histology and its comparison with high-definition white light colonoscopy: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2422–2430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ignjatovic A, East J, Suzuki N, et al. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1171–1178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paggi S, Rondonotti E, Amato A. Resect and discard strategy in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:899–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuiper T, Marsman WA, Jansen JM, et al. Accuracy for optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in nonacademic settings. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1016–1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ladabaum U, Fioritto A, Mitani A, et al. Real-time optical biopsy of colon polyps with narrow band imaging in community practice does not yet meet key thresholds for clinical decisions. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:81–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–625.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rastogi A, Early DS, Gupta N, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard-definition white-light, high-definition white-light, and narrow-band imaging colonoscopy for the detection of colon polyps and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:593–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1570–1595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van den Broek FJC, Reitsma JB, Curvers WL, et al. Systematic review of narrow-band imaging for the detection and differentiation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions in the colon. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:124–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Hongha T. Vu, Thomas G. Hollander, Jennifer Clebanoff, C. Prakash Gyawali, Erik P. Thyssen, Leonard B. Weinstock and Dayna S. Early: None. Gregory S. Sayuk: K23 DK84113. Stephen A. Edmundowicz: Consultant and Medical Advisory Board, Olympus Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongha T. Vu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vu, H.T., Sayuk, G.S., Hollander, T.G. et al. Resect and Discard Approach to Colon Polyps: Real-World Applicability Among Academic and Community Gastroenterologists. Dig Dis Sci 60, 502–508 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3376-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3376-z

Keywords

Navigation