Endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia with different published classifications: comparative study involving CONECCT classification

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to validate the COlorectal NEoplasia Classification to Choose the Treatment (CONECCT) classification that groups all published criteria (including covert signs of carcinoma) in a single table.

Patients and methods For this multicenter comparative study an expert endoscopist created an image library (n = 206 lesions; from hyperplastic to deep invasive cancers) with at least white light Imaging and chromoendoscopy images (virtual ± dye based). Lesions were resected/biopsied to assess histology. Participants characterized lesions using the Paris, Laterally Spreading Tumours, Kudo, Sano, NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification (NICE), Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP), and CONECCT classifications, and assessed the quality of images on a web-based platform. Krippendorff alpha and Cohen’s Kappa were used to assess interobserver and intra-observer agreement, respectively. Answers were cross-referenced with histology.

Results Eleven experts, 19 non-experts, and 10 gastroenterology fellows participated. The CONECCT classification had a higher interobserver agreement (Krippendorff alpha = 0.738) than for all the other classifications and increased with expertise and with quality of pictures. CONECCT classification had a higher intra-observer agreement than all other existing classifications except WASP (only describing Sessile Serrated Adenoma Polyp). Specificity of CONECCT IIA (89.2, 95 % CI [80.4;94.9]) to diagnose adenomas was higher than the NICE2 category (71.1, 95 % CI [60.1;80.5]). The sensitivity of Kudo Vi, Sano IIIa, NICE 2 and CONECCT IIC to detect adenocarcinoma were statistically different (P < 0.001): the highest sensitivities were for NICE 2 (84.2 %) and CONECCT IIC (78.9 %), and the lowest for Kudo Vi (31.6 %).

Conclusions The CONECCT classification currently offers the best interobserver and intra-observer agreement, including between experts and non-experts. CONECCT IIA is the best classification for excluding presence of adenocarcinoma in a colorectal lesion and CONECCT IIC offers the better compromise for diagnosing superficial adenocarcinoma.

Publication History

Received: 18 March 2021

Accepted: 10 August 2021

Article published online:
14 January 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 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
• 2 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR. et al. Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 367-373
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 Iwatate M, Sano Y, Tanaka S. et al. Validation study for development of the Japan NBI Expert Team classification of colorectal lesions. Dig Endosc Off J Jpn Gastroenterol Endosc Soc 2018; 30: 642-651
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T. et al. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 8-14
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 IJspeert JEG, Bastiaansen BAJ, 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
• 9 Lee CK, Shim J-J, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1593-1600
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Park S, Ko BM, Han JP. et al. A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 527-532.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Yamada M, Saito Y, Sakamoto T. et al. Endoscopic predictors of deep submucosal invasion in colorectal laterally spreading tumors. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 456-464
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Fabritius M, Jacques J, Gonzalez J-M. et al. A simplified table mixing validated diagnostic criteria is effective to improve characterization of colorectal lesions: the CONECCT teaching. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1197-E1206
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar