ABSTRACT
Objective To analyze presentation, management and outcomes of large (≥ 20 mm) polyps (LPs) detected in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program using a fecal immunochemical test (FIT).
Design Retrospective population-based study of all LPs detected in patients aged 50-74 years between 2015 and 2019 during FIT-positive colonoscopies within the screening program organized in Alsace (France).
Results Among 13,633 FIT-positive colonoscopies, 1256 LPs (8.5% malignant and 51.8% non- pedunculated) were detected by 102 community gastroenterologists in 1164 patients (one in 12 colonoscopies). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis of malignancy was 54% for non-pedunculated and 27% for pedunculated T1 CRCs. Endoscopic resection rate was 82.7% [95% CI 80.3-84.9] for benign LPs (70.2% [95% CI 66.4-74.1] non-pedunculated, 95.2% [95% CI 93.4-97.1] pedunculated, p<0.001), varying from 0 to 100% depending on the endoscopist. It was correlated with cecal intubation (Pearson r = 0.49, p<0.01) and adenoma detection (r = 0.25, p=0.01) rates. Most endoscopists did not refer patients to more experienced endoscopists, so that 60 to 90% of 183 surgeries for benign LPs were unwarranted. Endoscopic resection was curative for 4.3% [95% CI 0.9-12.0] of non-pedunculated and 37.8% [95% CI 22.5-55.2] of pedunculated T1 CRCs. Overall, 22 endoscopic submucosal dissections had to be performed to avoid one surgery.
Conclusion Compared with current recommendations, there is tremendous room for improvement of community endoscopy practices for the diagnosis and management of LPs. Detection and polypectomy competencies are correlated and highly variable among endoscopists. Endoscopic resection is curative in 83% of benign LPs and 16% of T1 CRCs.
WHAT IS KNOWN
➢ Endoscopic resection of large polyps is effective (success in > 90% of cases) and safe in tertiary care centers.
➢ Surgery for benign colorectal polyps is far from negligible in current practice.
WHAT IS NEW HERE
➢ One in 12 FIT-positive colonoscopies reveals a large polyp, that is 8 to 10 times more frequently than screening colonoscopies.
➢ In community practice, 4 of 5 benign large polyps only are removed endoscopically and 1 of 6 malignant large polyps cured endoscopically.
➢ Between 60% and 90% of surgeries for large benign polyps could be avoided if endoscopists having lesser polypectomy competency referred their patients to experienced endoscopists instead of surgeons.
➢ The benefit offered by endoscopic submucosal resection for the management of large polyps is marginal in community practice; here one surgery avoided for 22 endoscopic submucosal dissections performed.
➢ Detection and polypectomy competencies are correlated and highly variable among endoscopists.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was performed as part of a quality assurance programme within the CRC screening programme in Alsace without dedicated funding. The sources of funding of ADECA Alsace, the association in charge of the programme, include the French Sickness Fund (Assurance Maladie), the French Ministry of Health and the Haut-Rhin and Bas-Rhin Administrations (Conseils Departementaux du Haut-Rhin et du Bas-Rhin). They had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, or writing the report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Hospices Civils de Lyon.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All deidentified participant data are available upon reasonable request from IG isabelle.gendre{at}adeca-alsace.fr
