Colonoscopy is a crucial tool for evaluating lower gastrointestinal disease, monitoring high-risk patients for colorectal neoplasia, and screening for colorectal cancer. In the United States, over 14 million colonoscopies are performed annually, with a significant portion dedicated to post-polypectomy follow-up. Accurate measurement of colorectal polyp size during colonoscopy is essential, as it influences patient management, including the determination of surveillance intervals, resection strategies, and the assessment of malignancy risk. Despite its importance, many endoscopists typically rely on visual estimation alone, which is often imprecise due to technological and human biases, frequently leading to overestimations of polyp size and unnecessarily shortened surveillance intervals. To address these challenges, multiple tools and technologies have been developed to enhance the accuracy of polyp size estimation. The review examines the evolution of polyp measurement techniques, ranging from through-the-scope tools to computer-based and artificial intelligence-assisted technologies.

BACKGROUND : Accurate polyp size measurement is important for polyp risk stratification and decision-making regarding polypectomy and surveillance. Recently, a virtual scale (VS) function has been developed that allows polyp size measurement through projection of an adaptive VS onto colorectal polyps during real-time endoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the VS in terms of variability and systematic differences. METHODS : We conducted a video-based study with 120 colorectal polyps, measured by eight dedicated colorectal gastroenterologists (experts) and nine gastroenterology residents following endoscopy training (trainees). Three endoscopic measurement methods were compared: (1) visual, (2) snare and (3) VS measurement. We evaluated the method-specific variance (as measure of variability) in polyp size measurements and systematic differences between these methods. RESULTS : Variance in polyp size measurements was significantly lower for VS measurements compared to visual and snare measurements for both experts (0.52 vs. 1.59 and 1.96, p < 0.001) and trainees (0.59 vs. 2.21 and 2.53, p < 0.001). VS measurement resulted in a higher percentage of polyps assigned to the same size category by all endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements (experts: 69 % vs. 55 % and 59 %; trainees: 67 % vs. 51 % and 47 %) and reduced the maximum difference between individual endoscopists regarding the percentage of polyps assigned to the ≥ 10 mm size category (experts: 1.7 % vs. 10.0 % and 5.0 %; trainees: 2.5 % vs. 6.7 % and 11.7 %). Systematic differences between methods were < 0.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS : Use of the VS leads to lower polyp size measurement variability and more uniform polyp sizing by individual endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements.

Accurate size measurement of colorectal polyps is critical for clinical decision making and patient management. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current techniques used for colonic polyp measurement to improve the reliability of size estimations in routine practice.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to identify studies relevant to size measurement techniques published between 1980 and March 2024. The primary outcome was the accuracy of polyp sizing techniques used during colonoscopy.61 studies were included with 34 focusing on unassisted and assisted endoscopic visual estimation and 27 on computer-based tools. There was significant variability in visual size estimation among endoscopists. The most accurate techniques identified were computer-based systems, such as virtual scale endoscopes (VSE) and artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems. The least accurate techniques were visual or snare-based polyp size estimation. VSE assists endoscopists by providing an adaptive scale for real-time, direct, in vivo polyp measurements, while AI systems offer size measurements independent of the endoscopist's subjective judgment.This review highlights the need for standardized, accurate, and accessible techniques to optimize sizing accuracy during endoscopic procedures. There is no consensus on a gold standard for measuring polyps during colonoscopy. While biopsy forceps, snare, and graduated devices can improve the accuracy of visual size estimation, their clinical implementation is limited by practical, time, and cost challenges. Computer-based techniques will likely offer improved accuracy of polyp sizing in the near future.

Accurate assessment of colorectal polyp size is crucial for determining treatment and surveillance policies. However, visual estimation of lesion diameter is often inaccurate, making simple and effective educational tools essential. We aimed to evaluate the learning effects of virtual scale endoscopy (VSE).

Thirty-three endoscopists first watched prelearning videos for SET1. They then estimated the diameters of 20 lesions and referred to instructional videos with VSE for self-study. Subsequently, they watched the postlearning videos for SET2 and estimated the lesion diameters. The error between the estimated and correct lesion sizes of both sets was compared. To evaluate longer-term learning effects, participants answered SET3 and SET4, which consisted of the same questions as SET2 and SET1, respectively, but 2 to 3 months later without watching the instructional video for SET2.

The error in the participants' estimation of the correct lesion diameter improved from SET1 to SET2 (34.7 ± 6.6 mm vs 30.7 ± 7.7 mm, P = .048), with a significant learning effect and error improvement specifically among nonexperts (35.2 ± 5.3 mm vs 30 ± 6.8 mm, P = .028). In SET3 and SET4, participants' errors indicated that the learning effect was well maintained (SET2 vs SET3: 30.7 ± 7.7 mm vs 28.6 ± 7.2 mm [P = .1]; SET1 vs SET4: 34.7 ± 6.6 mm vs 31.7 ± 7.1 mm [P = .025]).

VSE videos are a valuable learning tool for estimating lesion diameter, particularly for novice endoscopists, both in the short and longer term.

The choice of polypectomy device and surveillance intervals for colorectal polyps are primarily decided by polyp size. We developed a deep learning-based system (ENDOANGEL-CPS) to estimate colorectal polyp size in real time.

ENDOANGEL-CPS calculates polyp size by estimating the distance from the endoscope lens to the polyp using the parameters of the lens. The depth estimator network was developed on 7297 images from five virtually produced colon videos and tested on 730 images from seven virtual colon videos. The performance of the system was first evaluated in nine videos of a simulated colon with polyps attached, then tested in 157 real-world prospective videos from three hospitals, with the outcomes compared with that of nine endoscopists over 69 videos. Inappropriate surveillance recommendations caused by incorrect estimation of polyp size were also analyzed.

The relative error of depth estimation was 11.3% (SD 6.0%) in successive virtual colon images. The concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) between system estimation and ground truth were 0.89 and 0.93 in images of a simulated colon and multicenter videos of 157 polyps. The mean CCC of ENDOANGEL-CPS surpassed all endoscopists (0.89 vs. 0.41 [SD 0.29]; P<0.001). The relative accuracy of ENDOANGEL-CPS was significantly higher than that of endoscopists (89.9% vs. 54.7%; P<0.001). Regarding inappropriate surveillance recommendations, the system's error rate is also lower than that of endoscopists (1.5% vs. 16.6%; P<0.001).

ENDOANGEL-CPS could potentially improve the accuracy of colorectal polyp size measurements and size-based surveillance intervals.

To avoid acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis, current guidelines recommend screening for high-risk esophageal varices (EVs) by determining variceal size and identifying red wale markings. However, visual measurements of EV during routine endoscopy are often inaccurate.

To determine whether biopsy forceps (BF) could be used as a reference to improve the accuracy of binary classification of variceal size.

An in vitro self-made EV model with sizes ranging from 2 to 12 mm in diameter was constructed. An online image-based survey comprising 11 endoscopic images of simulated EV without BF and 11 endoscopic images of EV with BF was assembled and sent to 84 endoscopists. The endoscopists were blinded to the actual EV size and evaluated the 22 images in random order.

The respondents included 48 academic and four private endoscopists. The accuracy of EV size estimation was low in both the visual (13.81%) and BF-based (20.28%) groups. The use of open forceps improved the ability of the endoscopists to correctly classify the varices by size (small ≤ 5 mm, large > 5 mm) from 71.85% to 82.17% (P < 0.001).

BF may improve the accuracy of EV size assessment, and its use in clinical practice should be investigated.

The virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is a newly introduced endoscope that helps endoscopists in measuring colorectal polyp size (CPS) during colonoscopy by displaying a virtual scale. This study aimed to determine the usefulness of the VSE for CPS measurement and the educational benefit of using VSE images to improve CPS estimation accuracy.

This study included 42 colorectal polyps in 26 patients treated at Hiroshima University Hospital. In study 1, CPS measured using a VSE before endoscopic mucosal resection was compared with CPS measured on resected specimens, and the agreement between the two measurement methods was evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis. In study 2, 14 endoscopists (5 beginners, 5 intermediates, and 4 experts) took a pre-test to determine the size of 42 polyps. After the pre-test, a lecture on CPS measurement using VSE images was given. One month later, the endoscopists took a post-test to compare CPS accuracy before and after the lecture.

In study 1, Bland-Altman analysis revealed no fixed or proportional errors. The mean bias ±95% limits of agreement (±1.96 standard deviations) of the measurement error was -0.05 ± 0.21 mm, indicating that the agreement between two measurement methods was sufficient. In study 2, the accuracy of CPS measurement was significantly higher among beginners (59.5% vs. 26.7%, p < 0.01) and intermediates (65.2% vs. 44.3%, p < 0.05) in the post-test than in the pre-test.

The VSE accurately measures CPS before resection, and its images are useful teaching tools for beginner and intermediate endoscopists.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe and effective procedure for small colorectal polyps ≤9 mm. There are only limited data regarding CSP of larger neoplastic lesions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CSP for polyps between 10 and 15 mm in size.

In this prospective single-arm observational pilot study, patients with a least one polyp 10-15 mm were included. These polyps were preferably removed by CSP using a dedicated hybrid snare. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate (CRR) determined by pathologically negative margins of the specimen and no neoplastic tissue obtained from biopsies of the resection site margin. Secondary outcomes were en bloc resection rate, failure of CSP, and incidence of adverse events.

A total of 61 neoplastic polyps were removed from 39 patients. Overall CRR was 80.3% (49/61). CSP was feasible in 78.7% (48/61) of polyps and the CRR in this group was 85.4% (41/48). When CSP failed (13/61; 21.3%), lesions were successfully resected by immediate HSP using the same snare with a CRR of 61.5% (8/13) in this group. One patient presented delayed hemorrhage after HSP of a polyp but successful hemostasis was achieved with two hemoclips. No other adverse events occurred. No recurrence was seen on follow-up colonoscopy in cases with incomplete resected polyps.

CSP seems to be efficient and safe in removing colorectal polyps up to 15 mm. A hybrid snare seems to be particularly advantageous for these polyps as it allows immediate conversion to HSP if CSP might fail in larger polyps. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04464837).

Estimation of the dimensions of endoscopic findings such as stricture diameter is largely subjective. Accurate assessment of stricture dimensions has multiple benefits including facilitating the choice of appropriately sized endoscopic therapies for treating stricture, properly tracking response to endoscopic therapies between procedures, and potentially even predicting outcomes of endoscopic therapy.

Endoscopies performed in children with repaired esophageal atresia between August 2019 and August 2021 for which both (1) an endoscopic estimate of esophageal stricture diameter obtained by visual comparison with the known dimensions of the biopsy forceps and (2) an intraoperative esophageal fluoroscopy study were performed were included for analysis. Fluoroscopic stricture diameter measurements were manually obtained using a software ruler tool calibrated to the known dimensions of the intraluminal endoscope. Statistical concordance was calculated between the visual diameter estimates and the standard fluoroscopic stricture measurements.

One hundred ninety-one endoscopies were included for analysis. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.94) between the visual diameter estimates and the fluoroscopic stricture measurements. Correlation was strongest for smaller to mid-sized stricture diameters.

Use of the biopsy forceps as a visual reference of known dimensions enables accurate visual estimation of esophageal stricture diameter during endoscopy using commonly available tools, with high concordance with standard fluoroscopic measurement techniques.

Polyp size is important for selecting the surveillance interval or treatment policy. Nevertheless, it is challenging to accurately estimate the polyp size during endoscopy. An easy and cost-effective function to assist in polyp size estimation is required.

To propose a virtual scale function for endoscopy and evaluate its performance and expected accuracy.

An adaptive virtual scale behavior was demonstrated. The measurement error of the virtual scale along the distance between the tip of the endoscope and the object plane was evaluated using graph paper. The accuracy of polyp size estimation by an expert endoscopist was compared with the accuracy of the biopsy forceps method using phantom images.

The measurement errors of the virtual scale were   ≤  0.7  mm when the distance to the graph paper, which faced the tip of the endoscope, varied from 4 to 30 mm. The accuracy with the virtual scale was significantly higher than that obtained with biopsy forceps (5.3  ±  5.5  %   versus 11.9  ±  9.4  %  , P  <  0.001).

The virtual scale function, which operates in real-time without any additional device, can be used to estimate polyp sizes easily and accurately with endoscopy.

Accurate polyp size estimation is essential in deciding the therapeutic strategy of colorectal polyps and endoscopic surveillance intervals. However, many endoscopists frequently make incorrect size estimations without being aware of their errors. This cross-sectional study aimed to clarify the characteristics of endoscopists associated with inaccurate estimation.

We previously conducted a web trial involving 261 endoscopists in 51 institutions in Japan to assess their ability to estimate polyp size. Participants answered questions about polyp size using visual estimates in a test involving images of 30 polyps. Here, we investigated the relationships between inaccurate size estimation and the backgrounds of participants. The rates of overestimation and underestimation of polyp size were also compared to clarify any trends in the answers of participants with low accuracy (< 50%).

Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the number of colonoscopic procedures in the past year was the only factor associated with a low accuracy of polyp size estimation (odds ratio 0.750, 95% confidence interval 0.609-0.925; P = 0.007). Endoscopists with low accuracy had a greater tendency to overestimate polyp size (42.3% overestimation and 21.2% underestimation, P < 0.001) compared with other endoscopists (16.6% overestimation and 17.9% underestimation, P = 0.951).

Endoscopists with limited experience of colonoscopy in the past year were more likely to make frequent errors in size estimation. Furthermore, endoscopists making inaccurate size estimations had a propensity to overestimate polyp size.

Accurate polyp size estimation is necessary for appropriate management of colorectal polyps. Polyp size is often determined by subjective visual estimation in clinical situations; however, it is inaccurate, especially for beginner endoscopists. We aimed to clarify the usefulness of our short training video, available on the Internet, for accurate polyp size estimation.

We conducted a multicenter prospective controlled study in Japan. After completing a pretest composed of near and far images of 30 polyps, participants received the educational video lecture (<10 min long). The educational content included the knowledge of strategies based on polyp size and criteria for size estimation including the endoscopic equipment size and videos of polyps in vivo. After one month, the participants undertook a posttest. The primary outcome was a change in the accuracy of polyp size visual estimation between the pretest and posttest in beginners.

Participants including 111 beginners, 52 intermediates, and 97 experts from 51 institutions completed both tests. Accuracy of polyp size estimation in the beginners showed a significant increase after the video lecture [54.1% (51.3-57.0%) to 59.0% (56.5-61.5%), P = 0.003]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the category of beginners and a low score on pretest (P = 0.020 and <0.001, respectively) were the factors that contributed to an increase of ≥10% in the accuracy.

Our educational video led to an improvement in polyp size estimation in beginners. Furthermore, this video may be useful for non-beginners with insufficient polyp size estimation accuracy.

Technical difficulties in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESD) result in en bloc resection failure or perforation. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score for predicting en bloc resection failure or perforation in ESD of colorectal neoplasms.

This single-center observational study included 1133 colorectal neoplasms treated with ESD in a Japanese tertiary cancer center. With a derivation set (n = 716), we performed multiple logistic regression to identify significant risk factors for en bloc resection failure or perforation. Based on odds ratios, we developed a risk score, ranging from 0 to 10: 0-1 'low risk' (LR); 2-4 'moderate risk' (MR); and 5-10 'high risk' (HR). An independent validation set comprised prospectively enrolled subjects (n = 417) that underwent ESDs from January 2014 to August 2016. The performance of the risk score for predicting en bloc resection failure or perforation for each risk tier was evaluated.

The baseline incidences of en bloc resection failure or perforation were 14.5% and 5.5% in the derivation and validation sets, respectively. We identified the following significant risk factors: endoscopist experience, tumor location, morphology, scope operability, underlying fold, and fold convergence. In the validation set, the incidences of en bloc resection failure or perforation were 0% in the LR tier (n = 62; 14.8%), 2.3% in the MR tier (n = 293; 70.4%), and 25.8% in the HR tier (n = 62; 14.8%) (P < 0.001, Cochran-Armitage trend test).

A risk scoring system, which was developed and prospectively validated, can successfully estimate the incidence of en bloc resection failure or perforation.

Cold resection for small colonic polyps, and larger lesions, is being rapidly and widely adopted. Driven by an impressive safety and cost profile compared with conventional polypectomy, these advantages are offset by the limitations of smaller and shallower resection, and absent thermal effects that may permit persistence of residual neoplasia. To overcome this, optimal cold snare technique requires inclusion of a margin of normal mucosa and a piecemeal resection technique for larger polyps. This article examines the fundamentals of cold snare resection and evidence for its application, theorizes on limits to its application, and identifies areas for further research.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with submucosal injection is an established method for removing colorectal polyps, although the en bloc resection rate decreases when polyp size exceeds 10 mm. Piecemeal resection increases local recurrence. Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an effective technique for removal of sessile colorectal polyps and we investigated whether it is superior to conventional EMR (CEMR).

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial at 5 institutions in Japan. Patients with endoscopically diagnosed, intermediate-size (10-20 mm) sessile colorectal lesions were randomly assigned to undergo UEMR or CEMR. Only the most proximal lesion was registered. The UEMR procedure included immersion of the entire lumen in water and snare resection of the lesion without submucosal injection of normal saline. We analyzed outcomes of 108 colorectal lesions in the UEMR group and 102 lesions in the CEMR group. R0 resection was defined as en bloc resection with a histologically confirmed negative resection margin. The primary endpoint was the difference in the R0 resection rates between groups.

The proportions of R0 resections were 69% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59%-77%) in the UEMR group vs 50% (95% CI 40%-60%) in the CEMR group (P = .011). The proportions of en bloc resections were 89% (95% CI 81%-94%) in the UEMR group vs 75% (95% CI 65%-83%) in the CEMR group (P = .007). There was no significant difference in median procedure time (165 vs 175 seconds) or proportions of patients with adverse events (2.8% in the UEMR group vs 2.0% in the CEMR group).

In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, we found that UEMR significantly increased the proportions of R0 resections for 10- to 20-mm sessile colorectal lesions without increasing adverse events or procedure time. Use of this procedure should be encouraged. Trials registry number: UMIN000018989.

With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61).

In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

A variety of add-on devices and new-generation endoscopes have the potential to detect lesions 'hidden' behind colonic folds. We measured the effect of these new modalities on colonoscopy's lesions miss rates by a meta-analysis of data from individual studies.

We performed literature searches in Medline and Cochrane Library for back-to-back randomized-controlled trials evaluating colonoscope add-on devices and new endoscopes in terms of lesions miss rates. The effect size on study outcomes is shown as relative risk (95% confidence interval).

We identified nine tandem studies with 1594 patients: seven evaluating add-on devices (one with cap, two with Endocuff, one with Endorings, one with Third-Eye Retroscope, two with G-EYE endoscope) and two evaluating the full-spectrum endoscopy system (FUSE) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). Overall, adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly lower with add-on devices/FUSE [0.33 (0.22-0.50), P<0.00001] compared with CC, the effect being similar among the add-on devices [0.35 (0.22-0.57), P<0.0001] and the FUSE [0.26 (0.15-0.46), P<0.00001] studies, respectively. Advanced AMR and polyp miss rate (PMR) were also significantly lower using add-on devices/FUSE [0.30 (0.21-0.44), P<0.0001 and 0.31 (0.13-0.79), P=0.01, respectively]. Use of add-on devices/FUSE scope was associated with significantly lower AMR and PMR in the proximal colon and it was associated with shortening of the colonoscopy surveillance interval.

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that AMR, advanced AMR, and PMR are significantly lower using add-on to colonoscope devices and the full-spectrum endoscopy systems compared with CC. Heterogeneity among the included studies and the small number of detected advanced adenomas call for cautious interpretation of the results.

To investigate the success rate of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for complete resection of 4-9 mm colorectal adenomatous polyps compared with that of hot snare polypectomy (HSP).

A prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled, parallel, non-inferiority trial conducted in 12 Japanese endoscopy units. Endoscopically diagnosed sessile adenomatous polyps, 4-9 mm in size, were randomly assigned to the CSP or HSP group. After complete removal of the polyp using the allocated technique, biopsy specimens from the resection margin after polypectomy were obtained. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate, defined as no evidence of adenomatous tissue in the biopsied specimens, among all pathologically confirmed adenomatous polyps.

A total of 796 eligible polyps were detected in 538 of 912 patients screened for eligibility between September 2015 and August 2016. The complete resection rate for CSP was 98.2% compared with 97.4% for HSP. The non-inferiority of CSP for complete resection compared with HSP was confirmed by the +0.8% (90% CI -1.0 to 2.7) complete resection rate (non-inferiority p<0.0001). Postoperative bleeding requiring endoscopic haemostasis occurred only in the HSP group (0.5%, 2 of 402 polyps).

The complete resection rate for CSP is not inferior to that for HSP. CSP can be one of the standard techniques for 4-9 mm colorectal polyps. (Study registration: UMIN000018328).

Real-time differentiation of diminutive polyps (1-5 mm) during endoscopy could replace histopathology analysis. According to guidelines, implementation of optical diagnosis into routine practice would require it to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with a negative predictive value (NPV) of more than 90%, using histologic findings as a reference, and agreement with histology-based surveillance intervals for more than 90% of cases.

We performed a prospective study with 39 endoscopists accredited to perform colonoscopies on participants with positive results from fecal immunochemical tests in the Bowel Cancer Screening Program at 13 centers in the Netherlands. Endoscopists were trained in optical diagnosis using a validated module (Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis). After meeting predefined performance thresholds in the training program, the endoscopists started a 1-year program (continuation phase) in which they performed narrow band imaging analyses during colonoscopies of participants in the screening program and predicted histological findings with confidence levels. The endoscopists were randomly assigned to groups that received feedback or no feedback on the accuracy of their predictions. Primary outcome measures were endoscopists' abilities to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions (using histology as a reference) with NPVs of 90% or more, and selecting surveillance intervals that agreed with those determined by histology for at least 90% of cases.

Of 39 endoscopists initially trained, 27 (69%) completed the training program. During the continuation phase, these 27 endoscopists performed 3144 colonoscopies in which 4504 diminutive polyps were removed. The endoscopists identified neoplastic lesions with a pooled NPV of 90.8% (95% confidence interval 88.6-92.6); their proposed surveillance intervals agreed with those determined by histologic analysis for 95.4% of cases (95% confidence interval 94.0-96.6). Findings did not differ between the group that did vs did not receive feedback. Sixteen endoscopists (59%) identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with NPVs greater than 90% and selected surveillance intervals in agreement with those determined from histology for more than 90% of patients.

In a prospective study following a validated training module, we found that a selected group of endoscopists identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with pooled NPVs greater than 90% and accurately selected surveillance intervals for more than 90% of patients over the course of 1 year. Providing regular interim feedback on the accuracy of neoplastic lesion prediction and surveillance interval selection did not lead to differences in those endpoints. Monitoring is suggested, as individual performance varied. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02516748; Netherland Trial Register: NTR4635.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.

Optical diagnosis allows for real-time endoscopic assessment of colorectal polyp histology and consists of the resect and discard and diagnose and leave paradigms. This survey assessed patient acceptance of optical diagnosis and their responses to a hypothetical doomsday scenario.

We conducted a 3-month cross-sectional survey of colonoscopy outpatients presenting to an Australian academic endoscopy center.

A total of 981 patients completed the survey (76.0% response rate). The 60.8% of patients who supported resect and discard were more likely to be older men who co-supported diagnose and leave. Fewer patients (49.6%) supported diagnose and leave. A family history of missed cancer diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; P = .003) was significantly associated with rejection of resect and discard, and a personal or family history of bowel cancer (OR, 0.7; P = .04) was significantly associated with rejection of diagnose and leave. In the hypothetical scenario of a cancerous polyp incorrectly left in situ leading to stage III disease, 208 (21.2%) patients would definitely ask for financial compensation, 584 (59.5%) were unsure, and 189 (19.3%) would definitely not seek compensation. The patient-proposed median value of compensation sought was $760,000 USD ($1,000,000 AUD; $1 AUD = $0.76 USD). Notably, 18.5% would be willing to give optical diagnosis another chance after this error.

Patient support for optical diagnosis is limited, and those who are not supporters are more likely to seek financial compensation if errors occur.

In the era of spreading adoption of gastrointestinal endoscopy screening worldwide, endoscopists encounter an increasing number of complex lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. For decision-making on optimal treatment, precise lesion characterization is crucial. Especially the assessment of potential submucosal invasion is of utmost importance as this determines whether endoscopic removal is an option and which technique should be used. To describe a lesion and stratify for the risk of submucosal invasion, several morphological classification systems have been developed. In this manuscript, we thoroughly discuss a systematic approach for the endoscopic assessment of a lesion, which include location, size, Paris classification, lateral spreading tumor classification if applicable and evaluation of the surface pattern with advanced endoscopic imaging techniques. The use of advanced imaging techniques improves the characterization of mucosal surface patterns and helps to determine whether lesions are amenable to endoscopic resection.