Publications

BACKGROUND & AIMS

During endoscopy, the resect and discard strategy, if performed with high confidence, can be used to determine histologic features of diminutive colorectal polyps (5 mm or less). These polyps can then be removed and discarded without pathology assessment. However, the complexities of real-time optical assessment and follow-up management have provided challenges to widespread use of this approach. We aimed to determine the outcomes of simple alternative strategies, in which all diminutive polyps can be resected and discarded.

METHODS

We collected data from 2 previous studies that used narrow-band imaging to assess polyps, performed at 5 medical centers (1658 patients with 2285 diminutive polyps; 15 endoscopists). We compared 3 resect and discard strategies: the currently used optical strategy, which relies on high confidence optical assessment of all diminutive polyps; a location-based strategy that classifies all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps a priori as hyperplastic and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon a priori as neoplastic; and a simplified optical strategy, in which all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps are classified as hyperplastic unless confidently assessed as neoplastic, and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon are classified as neoplastic unless confidently assessed as hyperplastic polyps. The primary outcome was the agreement of the surveillance interval calculated for each strategy with the surveillance interval determined by pathology analysis.

RESULTS

The proportion of surveillance intervals that agreed with pathology-based surveillance recommendations was slightly higher when the optical strategy was used compared to the location-based strategy or simplified optical strategy (94% vs 89% and 90%, respectively; P < .001). When the 5-10 year recommendations for patients with low-risk polyps were applied as a 10-year surveillance interval, all 3 strategies resulted in surveillance interval agreement compared to pathology above 90% (the quality benchmark). Use of the simplified or location-based strategy could have avoided pathology analysis for 77% of all polyps, compared to 59% if the optical strategy was used (P < .001). In addition, a higher proportion of patients could receive recommendations immediately after colonoscopy with use of the simplified or location based strategy (65%) compared to the optical strategy (40%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A location-based and a simplified optical resect and discard strategy produced surveillance recommendations that were in agreement with those from pathology analysis for at least 90% of patients, assuming a 10-year surveillance interval for patients with low-risk polyps. These strategies could further reduce the number of pathology examinations and provide more patients with immediate surveillance recommendations. Optical assessment might be reduced or might not be required for resect and discard. Clintrials.gov no: NCT01935180 and NCT01288833.

Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. It is unclear whether physicians should offer all CRC screening modalities (fecal occult blood test [FOBT], sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) to Chinese Americans to increase screening. Seven hundred and twenty-five Chinese Americans were asked in a survey if their physician had ever recommended CRC screening and to self-report receipt and type of CRC screening. Participants whose physician had recommended all CRC screening modalities were significantly more likely to report ever having screening (adjusted odds ratio 4.29, 95% CI 1.26-14.68) and being up-to-date (4.06, 95% CI 2.13-7.74) than those who reported that their physician only recommended FOBT. Participants who received a recommendation of only one type of screening did not report a significant difference in ever having or being up-to-date for screening. A potential strategy to increase CRC screening among Chinese Americans is for clinicians to recommend all available CRC screening modalities to each patient.