Frequency of serrated polyposis syndrome recognition by community endoscopists.

Background and study aims Some data indicate serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is underdiagnosed. We determined the frequency of SPS diagnosis by community endoscopists prior to referral to a tertiary center. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of SPS patients at a tertiary academic hospital. There were 212 patients who were referred to our center for resection of one or more lesions detected at a prior colonoscopy and who had records available that allowed determination of whether SPS was diagnosed before referral. Results Only 25 of 212 patients (11.8%) had a diagnosis or suspicion of a polyposis syndrome prior to referral, and only 12 patients (5.7%) had a specific SPS diagnosis made prior to referral. Among 187 patients diagnosed at our center, 39 had sufficient serrated lesions removed and documented in outside records to meet SPS criteria prior to referral, but the diagnosis was not made by the referring physician despite adequate numbers of lesions resected. The remaining cases required lesions removed at our center to meet SPS diagnostic criteria. Limitations were a single center, single expert endoscopist. Conclusions SPS is the most common colorectal polyposis syndrome, but it remains underdiagnosed by community endoscopists. Underdiagnosis may contribute to post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in patients with SPS.

Impact of changing diagnostic criteria on the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome.

Background and study aims The World Health Organization criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) were established in 2010 and modified in 2019. Neither set of criteria have been validated against genetic markers or proven to be the optimal criteria for defining colorectal cancer risk in patients with serrated colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to gain insight into how frequently the change in SPS criteria in 2019 impacted the diagnosis of SPS. Patients and methods We reviewed 279 patients with SPS diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 using the 2010 criteria (n = 163) or since 2019 using the 2019 criteria (n = 116). We reviewed whether patients in each group met the diagnosis of SPS by the alternative criteria. Results Of those diagnosed using 2010 criteria, 5.5 % did not meet 2019 criteria. Of those diagnosed by 2019 criteria, 10.3 % did not meet 2010 criteria. Conclusions Most patients with SPS in our database met the diagnosis of SPS by both 2010 and 2019 criteria, with only 5 % to 10 % of patients in each cohort not meeting the alternative diagnostic criteria.

Frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathologic errors leading to referral for endoscopic resection to a tertiary center.

Background and study aims We anecdotally encounter cases where referring endoscopists made errors in endoscopic interpretation of a colorectal lesion, sometimes combined with pathology errors at the referring centers, resulting in referral to our center for endoscopic resection. In this paper, we describe the frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathology errors leading to consultation for endoscopic resection. Patients and methods Review of 760 consecutive referrals to our center over a 26-month interval. Results In total, 28 (3.7 %) of all referred patients had ≥ 1 lesion that did not require any resection after investigation. There were 12 cases (1.6 % of all referrals) involving errors by both the referring endoscopist and the pathologist at the referring center. Errors commonly involved the ileocecal valve, lipomas, and mucosal prolapse changes. There were 15 additional referrals (2.0 % of all referrals) where no neoplastic lesion was identified at our center and either no biopsy was taken at the referring center (n = 9 patients, 10 lesions), the patient was referred although biopsy showed no neoplasia (n = 6), or the referring doctor correctly interpreted the lesion (lipoma), but the outside pathologist incorrectly reported adenoma (n = 1). Conclusions Endoscopists at tertiary centers should expect referrals to clarify the nature of colorectal lesions as neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Community endoscopists with equivocal endoscopic findings and unexpected or equivocal pathology results can consider pathology review at their center or at an expert center before referral for endoscopic or surgical resection.

Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cold EMR is being increasingly used for large serrated lesions. We sought to measure residual lesion rates and adverse events after cold EMR of large serrated lesions. METHODS: In a single academic center, we retrospectively examined a database of serrated class lesions ≥10 mm removed with cold EMR for safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-six serrated lesions ≥10 mm in size were removed from 312 patients. We successfully contacted 223 patients (71.5%) with no reported serious adverse events that required hospitalization, repeat endoscopy, or transfusion. The residual lesion rate per lesion at first follow-up colonoscopy was 18 of 225 (8%; 95% confidence interval, 5-12.1). Lesions with residual were larger at polypectomy compared with lesions without recurrence (median, 23 mm versus 16 mm, P = .017). CONCLUSION: Cold EMR appears to be safe and effective for the removal of large serrated lesions.

Room temperature water infusion during colonoscopy insertion induces rectosigmoid colon mucus production.

BACKGROUND: Water filling during colonoscopy improves several colonoscopy outcomes. We evaluated an anecdotal observation that room temperature water filling during colonoscope insertion results in mucus production in the left colon, which may impair mucosal visualization during withdrawal. METHODS: We performed 55 colonoscopies with either water or saline filling during insertion, and video recorded the examinations. Three blinded observers scored the amount of mucus visible on the video recordings. RESULTS: 29 patients had water filling and 26 patients had saline filling during insertion. Demographic features, procedure indications, volume of infused fluid, and insertion time to the cecum were similar in the two groups. All three blinded observers rated the mucus as greater after water filling than after saline (median 3 out of 5 vs. 1 out of 5; P < 0.001), with a kappa value for interobserver agreement of 0.364 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Room temperature water filling is associated with mucus production by the rectosigmoid colon, requiring additional cleansing during withdrawal.

Impact of a ring-fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring-fitted cap (EndoRings; EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate, insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. RESULTS: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, P = .025), but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or sessile serrated polyp detection rate. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with Endo-Rings and contributed substantially to the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without a significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. The use of EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418662.).

Impact of water filling on terminal ileum intubation with a distal-tip mucosal exposure device.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation. METHODS: Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method. RESULTS: TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P = .043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P = .019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes.

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for EMR: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for EMR. SIC-8000 (Eleview; Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved solution, but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 with hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. METHODS: This was a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney resection quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (SIC-8000, 84; hetastarch, 75) and 57 serrated lesions (SIC-8000, 30; hetastarch, 27). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, P = .001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03350217.).