Introduction

Accurate endoscopic diagnosis of colorectal polyps is essential for determining appropriate treatment strategies. The Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification and pit pattern diagnosis are used for diagnosis, but their comparative diagnostic performance in real-world clinical settings remains unclear, particularly between experts and non-experts.

Aims & Methods

This post-hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both classification across different levels of expertise using data from a prospective multicenter trial. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the deTXIon trial¹ , a randomized controlled trial conducted at eight Japanese institutions between March and October 2023. From the per-protocol set, we analyzed colorectal lesions that had both JNET classification and pit pattern diagnosis with confirmed histopathology. JNET classification categorizes lesions into Type 1 (corresponding to hyperplastic polyps [HPs] and sessile serrated lesions [SSLs]), Type 2A (low-grade adenomas), Type 2B (high-grade adenomas or superficial submucosal invasive cancer), and Type 3 (deep submucosal invasive cancer). Pit pattern classification included Type II ( HPs/SSLs ), Type III_S/III_L/IV (low-grade adenomas), Type V_I low-grade (high-grade adenoma), and Type V_I high-grade/V_N (submucosal invasive cancer). We calculated sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each classification stratified by endoscopist expertise and lesion size.

Results

A total of 1,617 colorectal lesions with a median size (IQR) of 2(1-4) mm were included in this analysis. Histopathological examination revealed that 71.5% (1,156/1,617) were low-grade adenomas, 1.0% (16/1,617) were high-grade adenomas or cancer, 19.3% were HPs (312/1,617), and 8.2% (133/1,617) were SSLs. For JNET Type 1 lesions, diagnostic accuracy was comparable between experts (Sen: 82.8%, Spe: 95.9%, PPV: 88.3%, NPV: 93.7%) and non-experts (Sen: 81.7%, Spe: 93.4%, PPV: 83.1%, NPV: 92.8%). Similarly, for JNET Type 2A, both groups showed high diagnostic performance (experts: Sen 93.8%, Spe 81.0%, PPV: 92.6%, NPV: 83.8%; non-experts: Sen 91.5%, Spe 78.3%, PPV: 90.3%, NPV: 80.6%).
In contrast, pit pattern diagnosis experts showed higher performances, particularly for Type II (experts: Sen 80.9%, Spe 96.3%, PPV: 89.0%, NPV: 93.1%; non-experts: Sen 57.9%, Spe 92.8%, PPV: 76.0%, NPV: 84.8%). The diagnostic performance for small lesions (≤5mm) was consistently high with JNET classification (Type 1: Sen 79.5%, Spe 94.3%; Type 2A: Sen 93.7%, Spe 79.2%), while pit pattern diagnosis showed lower performance (Type II: Sen 70.8%, Spe 94.5%; Type III_S/III_L/IV: Sen 93.6%, Spe 79.5%), for these lesions among non-experts.

Conclusion

JNET classification demonstrates comparable diagnostic performance between expert and non-expert endoscopists, likely due to its standardized and intuitive visual criteria. Pit pattern diagnosis shows experience-dependent performance differences, suggesting that NBI-based assessment may be more suitable for routine clinical practice, especially for diminutive lesions.

References

1. Toyoshima N, Mizuguchi Y, Takamaru H,et al. The Efficacy of Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging Observation in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial (deTXIon Study). Gastroenterology. 2025 in press

Disclosure

These authors disclose the following: Yutaka Saito, Masashi Misawa, Shin-ei Kudo, and Toshio Uraoka have received lecture fees from Olympus
Corporation. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.

Introduction

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been increasingly utilized due to its clinical benefits. However, in patients with poor bowel preparation, UEMR is limited by impaired endoscopic visualization due to luminal turbidity. Viscoclear®, a gel designed to secure endoscopic fields, has been available in Japan since 2020 and has demonstrated a 92.2% effectiveness rate in improving visibility during bleeding or inadequate bowel prep. While its usefulness during UEMR has been anticipated, clinical evidence remains limited. We conducted an image analysis study to evaluate the visibility enhancement effect of gel immersion compared to underwater.

Aims & Methods

This study was a prospective randomized crossover trial to compare the endoscopic visibility of colorectal adenomatous lesions (6-20 mm) between under-water and under-gel observation. Each lesion was observed alternately in both settings using white light imaging (WLI), blue laser imaging (BLI), and linked color imaging (LCI). Color difference (ΔE) between tumor and adjacent non-tumor areas was calculated using the Lab color space in Photoshop (Adobe Systems Inc.) to evaluate lesion margins. Based on preliminary retrospective data from our institution, a sample size of 72 was calculated (power: 0.8, one-sided α: 0.05). (jRCTs062220033)

Results

Between July 2022 and May 2024, 72 lesions were enrolled. Median tumor size was 8 mm (range: 6–18 mm). Histopathology revealed 65 adenomas (90.3%), 2 cancers (2.6%), 3 traditional serrated adenomas (4.1%), and 2 hyperplastic polyps (2.8%). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Segment Scores (BBPS-SS) were 3 in 50 cases, 2 in 21 cases, and 1 in 1 case.
Median ΔE values in the underwater group were 10.0 (WLI), 15.7 (BLI), and 11.7 (LCI), while those in the under-gel group were 12.4 (WLI), 21.1 (BLI), and 13.1 (LCI). ΔE was significantly higher in the under-gel group than the underwater group under WLI and BLI (p = 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively).
In subgroup analysis by BBPS-SS, under-gel observation showed significantly higher ΔE in WLI and BLI when BBPS-SS ≤2 (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). No significant differences were seen when BBPS-SS was 3.

Conclusion

Under-gel observation improved the visibility of lesion margins under WLI and BLI compared to underwater observation, particularly in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation. Gel immersion endoscopy may therefore be a useful adjunct in difficult visualization conditions during colorectal UEMR.