Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(01): E128-E135
DOI: 10.1055/a-2005-7548
Original article

Comparing size measurement of colorectal polyps using a novel virtual scale endoscope, endoscopic ruler or forceps: A preclinical randomized trial

Roupen Djinbachian
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Mahsa Taghiakbari
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Claire Haumesser
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3   University of Montreal Medical School, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Melissa Zarandi-Nowroozi
4   Division of Internal Medicine, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Maria Abou Khalil
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Sacha Sidani
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Jeremy Liu
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Benoit Panzini
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Daniel von Renteln
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Montreal University Hospital Center (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2   Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada
› Author AffiliationsSupported by: Fond de Recherche du Quebec Santé
Supported by: Université de Montréal Programme d’Excellence en Médecine pour l’Initiation En Recherche
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Measurement of colorectal polyp size: End of a long-running story?Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(04): E349-E350
DOI: 10.1055/a-2036-7533

Abstract

Background and study aims Accurate polyp size measurement is important for guideline conforming choice of polypectomy techniques and subsequent surveillance interval assignments. Some endoscopic tools (biopsy forceps [BF] or endoscopic rulers [ER]) exist to help with visual size estimation. A virtual scale endoscope (VSE) has been developed that allows superimposing a virtual measurement scale during live endoscopies. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of VSE when compared to ER and BF-based measurement.

Methods We conducted a preclinical randomized trial to evaluate the relative accuracy of size measurement of simulated colorectal polyps when using: VSE, ER, and BF. Six endoscopists performed 60 measurements randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio using each method. Primary outcome was relative accuracy in polyp size measurement. Secondary outcomes included misclassification of sizes at the 5-, 10-, and 20-mm thresholds.

Results A total of 360 measurements were performed. The relative accuracy of BF, ER, and VSE was 78.9 % (95 %CI = 76.2–81.5), 78.4 % (95 %CI = 76.0–80.8), and 82.7 % (95 %CI = 80.8–84.8). VSE had significantly higher accuracy compared to BF (P = 0.02) and ER (P = 0.006). VSE misclassified a lower percentage of polyps > 5 mm as ≤ 5 mm (9.4 %) compared to BF (15.7 %) and ER (20.9 %). VSE misclassified a lower percentage of ≥ 20 mm polyps as < 20 mm (8.3 %) compared with BF (66.7 %) and ER (75.0 %). Of polyps ≥10mm, 25.6 %, 25.5 %, and 22.5 % were misclassified as <10 mm with ER, BF, and VSE, respectively.

Conclusions VSE had significantly higher relative accuracy in measuring polyps compared to ER or BF assisted measurement. VSE improves correct classification of polyps at clinically important size thresholds.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 01 September 2022

Accepted after revision: 29 December 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
02 January 2023

Article published online:
30 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Comment to this article:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2023; 55(04): 399-399
DOI: 10.1055/a-2009-1949

 

  • References

  • 1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. American Cancer Society 2021; 71: 209-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 He X, Hang D, Wu K. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 852-861 e854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for Follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1131-1153.e1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rex DK, Kahi C, OʼBrien 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions; Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-1129
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Shimoda R, Akutagawa T, Tomonaga M. et al. Estimating colorectal polyp size with a virtual scale endoscope and visual estimation during colonoscopy: Prospective, preliminary comparison of accuracy. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 1471-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kim JH, Park SJ, Lee JH. et al. Is forceps more useful than visualization for measurement of colon polyp size?. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 3220-3226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pochapin MB, Khan A, Rosenberg J. et al. S0520 the Napoleon: A pilot feasibility study of a small endoscopic ruler for accurate polyp measurement. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: S259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rex DK, Rabinovitz R. Variable interpretation of polyp size by using open forceps by experienced colonoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 402-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Izzy M, Virk MA, Saund A. et al. Accuracy of endoscopistsʼ estimate of polyp size: A continuous dilemma. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7: 824-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Turner JK, Wright M, Morgan M. et al. A prospective study of the accuracy and concordance between in-situ and postfixation measurements of colorectal polyp size and their potential impact upon surveillance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 562-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Masato Y, Yuichi S, Daisuke U. et al. Virtual scale function of gastrointestinal endoscopy for accurate polyp size estimation in real-time: a preliminary study. J Biomed Optics 2021; 26: 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010; 8: 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chaptini L, Chaaya A, Depalma F. et al. Variation in polyp size estimation among endoscopists and impact on surveillance intervals. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 652-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71: 1326
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N, Konda V. et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 502.e501-502.e516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abdelrahim M, Saiga H, Maeda N. et al. Automated sizing of colorectal polyps using computer vision. Gut 2022; 71: 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kwak MS, Cha JM, Jeon JW. et al. Artificial intelligence-based measurement outperforms current methods for colorectal polyp size measurement. Digest Endosc 2022; 34: 1188-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Taghiakbari M, Pohl H, Djinbachian R. et al. What size cutoff level should be used to implement optical polyp diagnosis?. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 1182-1190
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Djinbachian R, Marchand E, Pohl H. et al. Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial comparing endoscopic image-enhancing modalities. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 712-719 e711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zarandi-Nowroozi M, Djinbachian R, von Renteln D. Polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am 2022; 32: 241-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Djinbachian R, Iratni R, Durand M. et al. Rates of incomplete resection of 1- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 904-914 e912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar