Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process.

CCE capsule endoscopy colon capsule endoscopy colorectal cancer colorectal polyp polyp polyp matching

Journal

Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology
ISSN: 1756-283X
Titre abrégé: Therap Adv Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101478893

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 09 01 2024
accepted: 08 03 2024
medline: 17 6 2024
pubmed: 17 6 2024
entrez: 17 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching. This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus. A systematic qualitative study using surveys. A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis. The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp. This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching. Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.
Objectives UNASSIGNED
This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.
Design UNASSIGNED
A systematic qualitative study using surveys.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.
Results UNASSIGNED
The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.
Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process

Identifiants

pubmed: 38883159
doi: 10.1177/17562848241242681
pii: 10.1177_17562848241242681
pmc: PMC11179528
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

17562848241242681

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s), 2024.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Ian Io Lei (II)

Institute of Precision Diagnostics and Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Department of Digestive Diseases, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

Anastasios Koulaouzidis (A)

Surgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Department of Social Medicine and Public Health, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Department of Medicine, OUH Svendborg Sygehus, Svendborg, Denmark.

Gunnar Baatrup (G)

Surgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Mark Samaan (M)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Ioanna Parisi (I)

Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital, London, UK.

Mark McAlindon (M)

Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Ervin Toth (E)

Department of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Aasma Shaukat (A)

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.

Ursula Valentiner (U)

Corporate Health International, Inverness, UK.
Institute of Anatomy and Experimental Morphology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Konstantinos John Dabos (KJ)

Gastroenterology Department, St John's Hospital, Livingston, UK.

Ignacio Fernandez (I)

Department of Gastroenterology - CHN, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain.

Alexander Robertson (A)

Department of Digestive Diseases, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.

Benedicte Schelde-Olesen (B)

Surgical Research Unit, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.

Nicholas Parsons (N)

Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Ramesh P Arasaradnam (RP)

Institute of Precision Diagnostics and Translational Medicine, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Leicester Cancer Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Classifications MeSH