BASIC (BLI Adenoma Serrated International Classification) classification for colorectal polyp characterization with blue light imaging

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aim Advanced endoscopic imaging has revolutionized the characterization of lesions during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to create a new classification for differentiating subcentimetric hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps, and deeply invasive malignant lesions using blue-light imaging (BLI) with high definition, with and without optical magnification, as well as to assess its interobserver concordance.

Methods A video library consisting of 48 videos/still images (with/without optical magnification) from 24 histologically verified polyps/cancer with BLI was prospectively created. In the first step, seven endoscopists with experience in electronic chromoendoscopy reviewed 12 BLI videos/still images with/without magnification representative of the different histotypes, and individually identified possible descriptors. In the second step, these descriptors were categorized and summarized with a modified Delphi methodology. In the third step, the seven endoscopists independently reviewed the remaining 36 videos/still images with/without optical magnification, and the interobserver agreement for the new descriptors was assessed. The interobserver agreement between endoscopists was assessed using Gwet’s AC1.

Results By reviewing the initial 12 videos/still images, 43 descriptors were proposed. By a modified Delphi process, the endoscopists eventually agreed on summarizing 12 descriptors into three main domains. The main domains identified were: polyp surface (mucus, yes/no; regular/irregular; [pseudo]depressed, yes/no), pit appearance (featureless, yes/no; round/nonround with/without dark spots; homogeneous/heterogeneous distribution with/without focal loss), and vessels (present/absent, lacy, pericryptal, irregular). Interobserver agreement for the polyp surface domain appeared to be almost perfect for mucus (AC1 0.92 with and 0.88 without optical magnification), substantial for the regular/irregular surface (AC1 0.67 with and 0.66 without optical magnification). For the pit appearance domain, interobserver agreement was good for featureless (AC1 0.9 with and 0.8 without optical magnification), and round/nonround (AC1 0.77 with and 0.69 without optical magnification) descriptors, but less consistent for the homogeneity of distribution (AC1 with/without optical magnification 0.58). Agreement was almost perfect for the vessel domain (AC1 0.81 – 0.85).

Conclusions The new BASIC classification takes into account both morphological features of the polyp, as well as crypt and vessel characteristics. A high concordance among the observers was shown for most of the summarized descriptors. Optical magnification had a beneficial effect in terms of interobserver agreement for most of the descriptors.

• References

• 1 Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1374-1403
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Anonymous. http://www.abim.org/pdf/data-candidates-certified/all-candidates.pdf
  PubMed
• 3 Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JM. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy. Lancet 1993; 341: 736-740
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L. et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial – SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1310-1322
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B. et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-1595
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I. et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1624-1633
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. New Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 865-869
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Rex DK. Reducing costs of colon polyp management. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 1135-1136
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 31: 210-217
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 34-37
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J. et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1100-1105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T. et al. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 8-14
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kato S, Fujii T, Koba I. et al. Assessment of colorectal lesions using magnifying colonoscopy and mucosal dye spraying: can significant lesions be distinguished?. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 306-310
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Fu KI, Sano Y, Kato S. et al. Chromoendoscopy using indigo carmine dye spraying with magnifying observation is the most reliable method for differential diagnosis between non-neoplastic and neoplastic colorectal lesions: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 1089-1093
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Rex DK. Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 1174-1181
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Wanders LK, East JE, Uitentuis SE. et al. Diagnostic performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 1337-1347
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M. et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Hewett DG. et al. Endoscopic prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the narrow-band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 625-632
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T. et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 74-86
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y. et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 599-607. e591
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Rees CJ, Rajasekhar PT, Wilson A. et al. Narrow band imaging optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps in routine clinical practice: the Detect Inspect Characterise Resect and Discard 2 (DISCARD 2) study. Gut 2017; 66: 887-895
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 IJspeert JE, Bastiaansen BA, van Leerdam ME. et al. Development and validation of the WASP classification system for optical diagnosis of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Gut 2016; 65: 963-970
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Rex DK, Ponugoti P, Kahi C. The “valley sign” in small and diminutive adenomas: prevalence, interobserver agreement, and validation as an adenoma marker. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 614-621
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Repici A, Ciscato C, Correale L. et al. Narrow-band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification to predict polyp histology: REDEFINE study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 479-486
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Quirke P, Risio M, Lambert R. et al. Quality assurance in pathology in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis – European recommendations. Virchows Arch 2011; 458: 1-19
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Sumimoto K, Tanaka S, Shigita K. et al. The diagnostic performance of JNET classification for differentiation among noninvasive, superficially invasive, and deeply invasive colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 700-709
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Uraoka T, Saito Y, Ikematsu H. et al. Sano’s capillary pattern classification for narrow-band imaging of early colorectal lesions. Dig Endosc 2011; 23: 112-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Tanaka S, Haruma K, Ito M. et al. Detailed colonoscopy for detecting early superficial carcinoma: recent developments. J Gastroenterol 2000; 35: 121-125
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Milholland AV, Wheeler SG, Heieck JJ. Medical assessment by a Delphi group opinion technic. New Engl J Med 1973; 288: 1272-1275
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2008; 61: 29-48
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 543-549
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Shankar V, Bangdiwala SI. Observer agreement paradoxes in 2x2 tables: comparison of agreement measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Endoscopic ClassificationReview Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-578
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 van Doorn SC, Hazewinkel Y, East JE. et al. Polyp morphology: an interobserver evaluation for the Paris classification among international experts. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 180-187
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Sakata S, Lee AHS, Kheir AO. et al. Patient acceptance of the optical diagnosis and misdiagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 372-375. e372
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Kaminski MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 NICE. Virtual chromoendoscopy to assess colorectal polyps during colonoscopy. Guidance and guidelines. NICE; 2017 Available from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Pohl H, Bensen SP, Toor A. et al. Quality of optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps and associated factors. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 817-822
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Paggi S, Rondonotti E, Amato A. et al. Narrow-band imaging in the prediction of surveillance intervals after polypectomy in community practice. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 808-814
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material