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 journalArticlepeer-review

40 Scopus citations


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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-208
Number of pages8
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this