Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size

Bradley W. Anderson; Thomas Christopher Smyrk; Kari S. Anderson; Douglas W. Mahoney; Mary E. Devens; Seth R. Sweetser; John B Kisiel; David A. Ahlquist

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058

Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size

Bradley W. Anderson, Thomas Christopher Smyrk, Kari S. Anderson, Douglas W. Mahoney, Mary E. Devens, Seth R. Sweetser, John B Kisiel, David A. Ahlquist

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

40 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background and Aims Polyp size ≥1 cm triggers more frequent colonoscopic surveillance, yet size is typically based on subjective endoscopic estimates. We sought to compare contemporary assessments of polyp size by endoscopic estimation and pathology measurement. Methods Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from the 2012 medical records at a large institution. Only polyps resected in toto with both endoscopic estimates and pathology measurements were included. Pathology measurements were considered the criterion standard. Factors affecting endoscopic miscall rates were assessed by multivariate analyses. Results From 6067 polyps resected, both endoscopic and pathology sizes were available on 1528. Distribution of polyp size appraised by endoscopy but not by pathology revealed modal clustering, particularly around 1 cm. Among 99 polyps endoscopically called 1 cm, 72% were

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	201-208
Number of pages	8
Journal	Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume	83
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058
State	Published - Jan 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Gastroenterology
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058

Cite this

@article{c3ea3d50f2e342a3a8e51ff6715ccebb,

title = "Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size",

abstract = "Background and Aims Polyp size ≥1 cm triggers more frequent colonoscopic surveillance, yet size is typically based on subjective endoscopic estimates. We sought to compare contemporary assessments of polyp size by endoscopic estimation and pathology measurement. Methods Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from the 2012 medical records at a large institution. Only polyps resected in toto with both endoscopic estimates and pathology measurements were included. Pathology measurements were considered the criterion standard. Factors affecting endoscopic miscall rates were assessed by multivariate analyses. Results From 6067 polyps resected, both endoscopic and pathology sizes were available on 1528. Distribution of polyp size appraised by endoscopy but not by pathology revealed modal clustering, particularly around 1 cm. Among 99 polyps endoscopically called 1 cm, 72% were ",

author = "Anderson, {Bradley W.} and Smyrk, {Thomas Christopher} and Anderson, {Kari S.} and Mahoney, {Douglas W.} and Devens, {Mary E.} and Sweetser, {Seth R.} and Kisiel, {John B} and Ahlquist, {David A.}",

year = "2016",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "83",

pages = "201--208",

journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",

issn = "0016-5107",

publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size

AU - Anderson, Bradley W.

AU - Smyrk, Thomas Christopher

AU - Anderson, Kari S.

AU - Mahoney, Douglas W.

AU - Devens, Mary E.

AU - Sweetser, Seth R.

AU - Kisiel, John B

AU - Ahlquist, David A.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background and Aims Polyp size ≥1 cm triggers more frequent colonoscopic surveillance, yet size is typically based on subjective endoscopic estimates. We sought to compare contemporary assessments of polyp size by endoscopic estimation and pathology measurement. Methods Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from the 2012 medical records at a large institution. Only polyps resected in toto with both endoscopic estimates and pathology measurements were included. Pathology measurements were considered the criterion standard. Factors affecting endoscopic miscall rates were assessed by multivariate analyses. Results From 6067 polyps resected, both endoscopic and pathology sizes were available on 1528. Distribution of polyp size appraised by endoscopy but not by pathology revealed modal clustering, particularly around 1 cm. Among 99 polyps endoscopically called 1 cm, 72% were

AB - Background and Aims Polyp size ≥1 cm triggers more frequent colonoscopic surveillance, yet size is typically based on subjective endoscopic estimates. We sought to compare contemporary assessments of polyp size by endoscopic estimation and pathology measurement. Methods Colonoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from the 2012 medical records at a large institution. Only polyps resected in toto with both endoscopic estimates and pathology measurements were included. Pathology measurements were considered the criterion standard. Factors affecting endoscopic miscall rates were assessed by multivariate analyses. Results From 6067 polyps resected, both endoscopic and pathology sizes were available on 1528. Distribution of polyp size appraised by endoscopy but not by pathology revealed modal clustering, particularly around 1 cm. Among 99 polyps endoscopically called 1 cm, 72% were

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952325710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952325710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058

M3 - Article

C2 - 26318830

AN - SCOPUS:84952325710

SN - 0016-5107

VL - 83

SP - 201

EP - 208

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

IS - 1

ER -

Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this