TY - JOUR
T1 - Colorectal surveillance interval assignment based on in vivo prediction of polyp histology
T2 - Impact of endoscopic quality improvement program
AU - Coe, Susan G.
AU - Thomas, Colleen
AU - Crook, Julia
AU - Ussui, Vivian
AU - Diehl, Nancy
AU - Wallace, Michael B.
N1 - Funding Information:
DISCLOSURE: The following author disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: Dr. Wallace receives research funding from Olympus, Cook, Boston Scientific, Mauna Kea Technologies, American BioOptics, National Institutes of Health, and the Bankhead Coley Research Foundation. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Funding for this study was provided by a Mayo CRS grant.
PY - 2012/7
Y1 - 2012/7
N2 - Background: Validated training methods are needed before in vivo optical diagnosis can be used to guide colorectal cancer surveillance interval assignments. Objectives: To assess the impact of endoscopist training on accuracy of surveillance intervals based on in vivo optical diagnosis. Design: Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 1231 patients with colorectal polyps (before training, n = 577; after training, n = 654). Interventions: Endoscopists were randomized to either participate or not participate in two 1-hour training sessions. Endoscopists' in vivo pathology predictions were recorded for all resected polyps. The accuracy of in vivo prediction-guided surveillance intervals were compared with pathology-guided intervals as the criterion standard. Surveillance interval accuracy before and after training were analyzed. Main Outcome Measurements: Surveillance interval accuracy based on in vivo polyp predictions with pathology-guided intervals as criterion standard before and after a training intervention. Results: Optically predicted surveillance intervals for the trained group of endoscopists had an overall accuracy of 84% (242/287) before training and 82% (261/317) after training. There was little evidence to suggest that training had a meaningful impact on the accuracy of optically predicted surveillance intervals (odds ratio 1.20; 95% CI, 0.76-1.89, P = .44). Limitations: Limitations include small sample size, lack of endoscopist prediction confidence levels, and optional use of narrow-band imaging. Conclusions: Surveillance interval accuracy did not meet published thresholds (>90%) to use in vivo optical diagnosis without pathologic confirmation. Larger studies, focused specifically on the impact of training, are needed to validate methods to improve polyp diagnosis and surveillance predication accuracy.
AB - Background: Validated training methods are needed before in vivo optical diagnosis can be used to guide colorectal cancer surveillance interval assignments. Objectives: To assess the impact of endoscopist training on accuracy of surveillance intervals based on in vivo optical diagnosis. Design: Prospective, randomized study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 1231 patients with colorectal polyps (before training, n = 577; after training, n = 654). Interventions: Endoscopists were randomized to either participate or not participate in two 1-hour training sessions. Endoscopists' in vivo pathology predictions were recorded for all resected polyps. The accuracy of in vivo prediction-guided surveillance intervals were compared with pathology-guided intervals as the criterion standard. Surveillance interval accuracy before and after training were analyzed. Main Outcome Measurements: Surveillance interval accuracy based on in vivo polyp predictions with pathology-guided intervals as criterion standard before and after a training intervention. Results: Optically predicted surveillance intervals for the trained group of endoscopists had an overall accuracy of 84% (242/287) before training and 82% (261/317) after training. There was little evidence to suggest that training had a meaningful impact on the accuracy of optically predicted surveillance intervals (odds ratio 1.20; 95% CI, 0.76-1.89, P = .44). Limitations: Limitations include small sample size, lack of endoscopist prediction confidence levels, and optional use of narrow-band imaging. Conclusions: Surveillance interval accuracy did not meet published thresholds (>90%) to use in vivo optical diagnosis without pathologic confirmation. Larger studies, focused specifically on the impact of training, are needed to validate methods to improve polyp diagnosis and surveillance predication accuracy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862667759&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862667759&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.007
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 22726470
AN - SCOPUS:84862667759
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 76
SP - 118-125.e1
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -