Introduction
Histopathological assessment remains the gold standard for evaluating diminutive colorectal polyps, despite the potential of optical diagnosis (OD) to reduce colonoscopy-associated costs (1). However, implementing OD strategies remains limited in clinical practice (2). This study aimed to evaluate patient acceptance of truly replacing pathology evaluation of diminutive polyps with resect and discard (RD) and diagnose and leave (DL) strategies using computer-aided polyp diagnosis (CADx).
Aims & Methods
In this prospective clinical pilot study at the Montreal University Hospital Center, 102 patients undergoing colonoscopy were invited to participate in the study. Patients received information on CADx, RD, DL and were informed that if they agree to participate in the study, we will diagnose all polyps using CADx during the colonoscopy, but polyps will be discarded or left in place and no pathology exams will be performed. For consenting patients, blue light imaging (BLI)-assisted CADx was used and endoscopists made the final histology determination and rated their confidence level (high vs. low) in the OD. Endoscopists also determined if high-risk features were present before using RD or DL strategies. Then all diminutive polyps optically diagnosed with high confidence as adenomas were resected and discarded and all diminutive rectosigmoid polyps optically diagnosed as hyperplastic with high confidence were left in situ. All polyps >5mm, with disagreement between endoscopists and CADx OD, low-confidence OD, or high-risk features (JNET 2b or higher) were sent for pathology evaluation. All cases were video recorded, and a quality review of the diagnoses performed with two expert endoscopists (DR and HP).
Results
Among the 102 patients approached, 97 (95%) accepted participating and utilization of CADx instead of pathology. Three stated that they did not want to participate in any research, and two patients stated that they did not trust OD or CADx as the reason for refusal. Overall, 164 diminutive polyps were removed in 97 patients (mean age=67.2 years), of which 36% were in the rectosigmoid and 64% in the proximal colon. CADx-assisted OD was performed on 97% of the polyps. The proportion of polyps with a low-confidence OD or disagreement between endoscopists' and CADx-based OD was 19/159 (11.9%). Overall, 98/159 (61.6%) polyps underwent the RD strategy, of which 4 polyps were discarded by the endoscopist's discretion despite disagreement between endoscopists and CADx OD. One of these 4 polyps had to undergo the DL strategy but was RD because of serrated features. One polyp in the proximal colon was resected and retrieved because of serrated features. 40 polyps were DL in the rectosigmoid, of which 1 polyp was neoplastic based on CADx and endoscopist's OD.
Conclusion
We observed a very high patient acceptance for truly replacing diminutive polyp histopathology with CADx-assisted OD. CADx-based OD was used to RD 98/159 (61.6%) or DL 40/159 (25.2%) diminutive polyps found in the cohort.
References
1) Rex, Douglas K. It’s not lack of evidence holding back resect and discard. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Volume 96, Issue 6, 1033 - 1035.
2) Willems P, Djinbachian R, Ditisheim S, Orkut S, Pohl H, Barkun A, Bouin M, Faulques B, von Renteln D. Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey. Endosc Int Open. 2020 May;8(5):E684-E692.
Disclosure
Dr Rex is a consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Aries Pharmaceutical, Braintree Laboratories, Lumendi Ltd., Norgine, Endokey, GI Supply,
Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; the recipient of research support from EndoAid, Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc, and Braintree Laboratories; and a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr Pohl has received research funding from Steris, Cosmo, and is an advisory board member of InterVenn. Dr von Renteln has received research funding from ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Ventage, Pendopharm, Fujifilm, and Pentax and has received consultant or speaker fees from Boston Scientific Inc, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, and Pendopharm. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.