Interobserver reliability of methods to determine complete resection of adenomas in colonoscopy

Abstract

Background Forceps margin biopsy and polypectomy specimen margins have both been used to assess for polypectomy resection adequacy. The interobserver reliability of the two methods has not been well described.

Methods The interpretability of polypectomy specimens for presence of residual neoplasia at the margin was assessed by two blinded pathologists. Next, the concordance of forceps margin biopsy interpretations between three blinded pathologists was evaluated by calculation of interobserver κ.

Results Rates of polypectomy specimen margin interpretability were low: 24/92 (26 %) for pathologist A, 28/92 (30.4 %) for pathologist B. Concordance of forceps margin biopsy interpretations (n = 129) between pathologists was high. Two internal pathologists showed substantial agreement in margin biopsy interpretations (κ 0.779; 95 %CL 0.543, 0.912). The concordance remained strong after biopsies were reviewed by a third, external pathologist (κ 0.829; 95 %CL 0.658, 0.924). There was complete agreement on 123/129 (95.3 %) between all three pathologists for presence of neoplasia.

Conclusion The majority of polypectomy specimen margins were uninterpretable by pathologists for presence of residual neoplasia. Forceps margin biopsy shows strong interobserver reliability in adenomatous lesions.

Publication History

Received: 28 May 2020

Accepted after revision: 07 December 2020

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 December 2020

Article published online:
18 February 2021

• References

• 1 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80
• 2 Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TMF. et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 950-960
• 3 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 4 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions – recommendations by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 486-519
• 5 Barge W, Kumar D, Giusto D. et al. Alternative approaches to polyp extraction in colonoscopy: a proof of principle study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 536-541
• 6 Woods A, Sanowski RA, Wadas DD. et al. Eradication of diminutive polyps: a prospective evaluation of bipolar coagulation versus conventional biopsy removal. Gastrointest Endosc 1989; 35: 536-540
• 7 Horiuchi A, Hosoi K, Kajiyama M. et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of 2 methods of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 686-692
• 8 Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. et al. 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
• 9 Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747
• 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
• 11 Kawamura T, Takeuchi Y, Asai S. et al. A comparison of the resection rate for cold and hot snare polypectomy for 4–9 mm colorectal polyps: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (CRESCENT Study). Gut 2018; 67: 1950-1957