Although accurate assessment of polyp morphology helps endoscopists select the appropriate management for colorectal polyps, some studies have reported unsatisfactory accuracy in such assessment. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of a short educational video available on the Internet for accurate polyp morphology assessment.

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to the pre- or post-education groups after a pre-test comprising images of 42 polyps, including 12 laterally spreading tumors. Participants who scored ≥ 80% on the pre-test were excluded. Only the post-education group completed the diagnostic test after watching an online educational video. The primary outcome was the difference in diagnostic accuracy between the pre-test and diagnostic tests for each group.

Of the 296 endoscopists enrolled from 48 institutions, 34 missed the test deadline, and 29 who scored ≥ 80% in the pre-test were excluded. The primary outcome analysis sets were 117 and 116 in the pre- and post-education groups, respectively. The mean pre-test accuracies in the pre-education and post-education groups were 60.6% and 60.7%, respectively. The difference in diagnostic accuracy between the pre-test and diagnostic test was significantly higher in the post-education than the pre-education group (12.0 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.9-14.1 and 2.3 points, 95% CI 0.9-3.6; p < 0.001).

This multicenter randomized controlled trial demonstrated the usefulness of a short educational video for accurate polyp morphology assessment.

The Paris classification categorises colorectal polyp morphology. Interobserver agreement for Paris classification has been assessed at optical colonoscopy (OC) but not CT colonography (CTC). We aimed to determine the following: (1) interobserver agreement for the Paris classification using CTC between radiologists; (2) if radiologist experience influenced classification, gross polyp morphology, or polyp size; and (3) the extent to which radiologist classifications agreed with (a) colonoscopy and (b) a combined reference standard.

Following ethical approval for this non-randomised prospective cohort study, seven radiologists from three hospitals classified 52 colonic polyps using the Paris system. We calculated interobserver agreement using Fleiss kappa and mean pairwise agreement (MPA). Absolute agreement was calculated between radiologists; between CTC and OC; and between CTC and a combined reference standard using all available imaging, colonoscopic, and histopathological data.

Overall interobserver agreement between the seven readers was fair (Fleiss kappa 0.33; 95% CI 0.30-0.37; MPA 49.7%). Readers with < 1500 CTC experience had higher interobserver agreement (0.42 (95% CI 0.35-0.48) vs. 0.33 (95% CI 0.25-0.42)) and MPA (69.2% vs 50.6%) than readers with ≥ 1500 experience. There was substantial overall agreement for flat vs protuberant polyps (0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68)) with a MPA of 87.9%. Agreement between CTC and OC classifications was only 44%, and CTC agreement with the combined reference standard was 56%.

Radiologist agreement when using the Paris classification at CT colonography is low, and radiologist classification agrees poorly with colonoscopy. Using the full Paris classification in routine CTC reporting is of questionable value.

Interobserver agreement for radiologists using the Paris classification to categorise colorectal polyp morphology is only fair; routine use of the full Paris classification at CT colonography is questionable.

• Overall interobserver agreement for the Paris classification at CT colonography (CTC) was only fair, and lower than for colonoscopy. • Agreement was higher for radiologists with < 1500 CTC experience and for larger polyps. There was substantial agreement when classifying polyps as protuberant vs flat. • Agreement between CTC and colonoscopic polyp classification was low (44%).

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

SCENIC (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in IBD) guidelines recommend that visible dysplasia in patients with longstanding inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should be endoscopically characterized using a modified Paris classification. This study aimed to determine the interobserver agreement (IOA) of the modified Paris classification and endoscopists' accuracy for pathology prediction of IBD visible lesions.

One hundred deidentified endoscopic still images and 30 videos of IBD visible colorectal lesions were graded by 10 senior and 4 trainee endoscopists from 5 tertiary care centers. Endoscopists were asked to assign 4 classifications for each image: the standard Paris classification, modified Paris classification, pathology prediction, and lesion border. Agreement was measured using Light's kappa coefficient. Consensus of ratings was assessed according to strict majority.

The overall Light's kappa for all study endpoints was between .32 and .49. In a subgroup analysis between junior and senior endoscopists, Light's kappa continued to be less than .6 with a slightly higher agreement among juniors. Lesions with the lowest agreement and no consensus were mostly classified as Is, IIa, and mixed Paris classification and sessile and superficial elevated for modified Paris classification. Endoscopist accuracy for prediction of dysplastic, nondysplastic, and serrated pathology was 77%, 56%, and 30%, respectively. There was a strong association (P < .001) between the given morphology classification and the predicted pathology with Ip lesions carrying a much lower expectation of dysplasia than Is/IIc/III and mixed lesions. The agreement for border prediction was .5 for junior and .3 for senior endoscopists.

This study demonstrates very low IOA for Paris and modified Paris classifications and low accuracy and IOA for lesion histopathology prediction. Revisions of these classifications are required to create a clinically useful risk stratification tool and enable eventual application of augmented intelligence tools.

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs). Patients and methods  We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed. Results  ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference ( P  > 0.05) between the two categories of operators. Conclusions  In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

The ability of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) prior to endoscopic resection of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is critical to inform therapeutic decisions. Prior studies suggest that it is insufficiently accurate to detect SMIC. It is unknown whether lesion morphology influences optical evaluation performance.

LNPCPs ≥20 mm referred for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Optical evaluation was performed prior to endoscopic resection with the optical prediction of SMIC based on established features (Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, ulceration). Optical evaluation performance outcomes were calculated. Outcomes were reported by dominant morphology: nodular (Paris 0-Is/0-IIa+Is) vs flat (Paris 0-IIa/0-IIb) morphology.

From July 2013 to July 2019, 1583 LNPCPs (median size 35 [interquartile range, 25-50] mm; 855 flat, 728 nodular) were assessed. SMIC was identified in 146 (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%-10.8%). Overall sensitivity and specificity were 67.1% (95% CI, 59.2%-74.2%) and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%), respectively. The overall SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). Significant differences in sensitivity (90.9% vs 52.7%), specificity (96.3% vs 93.7%), and SMIC miss rate (0.6% vs 5.9%) between flat and nodular LNPCPs were identified (all P < .027). Multiple logistic regression identified size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7), and nodular morphology (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9) as predictors of missed SMIC (all P < .039).

Optical evaluation performance is dependent on lesion morphology. In the absence of features suggestive of SMIC, flat lesions can be presumed benign and be managed accordingly.