Search

Background and Aim: Accurate polyp size estimation is essential in deciding the therapeutic strategy of colorectal polyps and endoscopic surveillance intervals. However, many endoscopists frequently make incorrect size estimations without being aware of their errors. This cross‐sectional study aimed to clarify the characteristics of endoscopists associated with inaccurate estimation. Methods: We previously conducted a web trial involving 261 endoscopists in 51 institutions in Japan to assess their ability to estimate polyp size. Participants answered questions about polyp size using visual estimates in a test involving images of 30 polyps. Here, we investigated the relationships between inaccurate size estimation and the backgrounds of participants. The rates of overestimation and underestimation of polyp size were also compared to clarify any trends in the answers of participants with low accuracy (< 50%). Results: Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the number of colonoscopic procedures in the past year was the only factor associated with a low accuracy of polyp size estimation (odds ratio 0.750, 95% confidence interval 0.609–0.925; P = 0.007). Endoscopists with low accuracy had a greater tendency to overestimate polyp size (42.3% overestimation and 21.2% underestimation, P < 0.001) compared with other endoscopists (16.6% overestimation and 17.9% underestimation, P = 0.951). Conclusions: Endoscopists with limited experience of colonoscopy in the past year were more likely to make frequent errors in size estimation. Furthermore, endoscopists making inaccurate size estimations had a propensity to overestimate polyp size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Accurate polyp size estimation is necessary for appropriate management of colorectal polyps. Polyp size is often determined by subjective visual estimation in clinical situations; however, it is inaccurate, especially for beginner endoscopists. We aimed to clarify the usefulness of our short training video, available on the Internet, for accurate polyp size estimation. Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective controlled study in Japan. After completing a pretest composed of near and far images of 30 polyps, participants received the educational video lecture (<10 min long). The educational content included the knowledge of strategies based on polyp size and criteria for size estimation including the endoscopic equipment size and videos of polyps in vivo. After one month, the participants undertook a posttest. The primary outcome was a change in the accuracy of polyp size visual estimation between the pretest and posttest in beginners. Results: Participants including 111 beginners, 52 intermediates, and 97 experts from 51 institutions completed both tests. Accuracy of polyp size estimation in the beginners showed a significant increase after the video lecture [54.1% (51.3–57.0%) to 59.0% (56.5–61.5%), P = 0.003]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the category of beginners and a low score on pretest (P = 0.020 and <0.001, respectively) were the factors that contributed to an increase of ≥10% in the accuracy. Conclusion: Our educational video led to an improvement in polyp size estimation in beginners. Furthermore, this video may be useful for non‐beginners with insufficient polyp size estimation accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on the colonic polyp detection rate with narrow-band imaging (NBI) compared with white-light imaging (WLI). We compared the mean number of colonic polyps detected per patient for NBI versus WLI using a next-generation NBI system (EVIS LUCERA ELITE; Olympus Medical Systems) used with standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy and wide-angle (WA) colonoscopy. Methods: Design: this study is a 2 × 2 factorial, prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Setting: this study was conducted at five academic centers in Japan. Interventions: patients were allocated to one of four groups: (1) WLI with SD colonoscopy (H260AZI), (2) NBI with SD colonoscopy (H260AZI), (3) WLI with WA colonoscopy (CF-HQ290), and (4) NBI with WA colonoscopy (CF-HQ290). Main outcome: the mean numbers of polyps detected per patient were compared between the four groups: WLI with/without WA colonoscopy and NBI with/without WA colonoscopy. Results: Of the 454 patients recruited, 431 patients were enrolled. The total numbers of polyps detected by WLI with SD, NBI with SD, WLI with WA, and NBI with WA were 164, 176, 188, and 241, respectively. The mean number of polyps detected per patient was significantly higher in the NBI group than in the WLI group (2.01 vs 1.56; P = 0.032). The rate was not higher in the WA group than in the SD group (1.97 vs 1.61; P = 0.089). Conclusions: Although WA colonoscopy did not improve the polyp detection, next-generation NBI colonoscopy represents a significant improvement in the detection of colonic polyps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is an exciting new tool that allows detailed analysis of the morphological architecture of mucosal crypt orifices. In this review, we principally describe the efficacy of magnifying chromoendoscopy and magnifying colonoscopy with narrow band imaging (NBI) for differential diagnosis of colorectal lesions, including distinction between non-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions, and also between endoscopically treatable early invasive cancers and untreatable cancers, based on a review of the literature. We have conducted a prospective study showing that a combination of magnifying colonoscopy and chromoendoscopy is currently a more reliable method than conventional endoscopy and chromoendoscopy for separating non-neoplastic from neoplastic lesions of the colon and rectum. Magnifying colonoscopy with NBI is convenient and as accurate as chromoendoscopy with magnification. We principally use only magnifying colonoscopy with NBI, rather than chromoendoscopy, to routinely distinguish neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopists can predict the depth of invasion of early colorectal cancer by magnifying chromoendoscopy, magnifying colonoscopy with NBI and the non-lifting sign. Among these approaches, magnifying chromoendoscopy is diagnostically the most reliable, with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificitiy of 98.8%, 85.6%, and 99.4%, respectively. Although its reliability depends on the skill of magnifying observation, widespread applications of the magnification technique could influence the indications for biopsy sampling during colonoscopy and the indications for mucosectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]