Frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathologic errors leading to referral for endoscopic resection to a tertiary center

Abstract

Background and study aims We anecdotally encounter cases where referring endoscopists made errors in endoscopic interpretation of a colorectal lesion, sometimes combined with pathology errors at the referring centers, resulting in referral to our center for endoscopic resection. In this paper, we describe the frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathology errors leading to consultation for endoscopic resection.

Patients and methods Review of 760 consecutive referrals to our center over a 26-month interval.

Results In total, 28 (3.7 %) of all referred patients had ≥ 1 lesion that did not require any resection after investigation. There were 12 cases (1.6 % of all referrals) involving errors by both the referring endoscopist and the pathologist at the referring center. Errors commonly involved the ileocecal valve, lipomas, and mucosal prolapse changes. There were 15 additional referrals (2.0 % of all referrals) where no neoplastic lesion was identified at our center and either no biopsy was taken at the referring center (n = 9 patients, 10 lesions), the patient was referred although biopsy showed no neoplasia (n = 6), or the referring doctor correctly interpreted the lesion (lipoma), but the outside pathologist incorrectly reported adenoma (n = 1).

Conclusions Endoscopists at tertiary centers should expect referrals to clarify the nature of colorectal lesions as neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Community endoscopists with equivocal endoscopic findings and unexpected or equivocal pathology results can consider pathology review at their center or at an expert center before referral for endoscopic or surgical resection.

Publication History

Received: 08 June 2022

Accepted after revision: 11 October 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
12 October 2022

Article published online:
15 December 2022

• References

• 1 Rex DK, Alikhan M, Cummings O. et al. Accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps by general pathologists in community practice. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 468-474
• 2 Khalid O, Radaideh S, Cummings OW. et al. Reinterpretation of histology of proximal colon polyps called hyperplastic in 2001. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 3767-3770
• 3 Tinmouth J, Henry P, Hsieh E. et al. Sessile serrated polyps at screening colonoscopy: have they been under diagnosed?. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1698-1704
• 4 Payne SR, Church TR, Wandell M. et al. Endoscopic detection of proximal serrated lesions and pathologic identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps vary on the basis of center. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1119-1126
• 5 Ghorai S, Ulbright TM, Rex DK. Endoscopic findings of diverticular inflammation in colonoscopy patients without clinical acute diverticulitis: prevalence and endoscopic spectrum. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 802-806
• 6 Sreepati G, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Clip artifact after closure of large colorectal EMR sites: incidence and recognition. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 344-349
• 7 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
• 8 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 9 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Pathmanathan N. Safety of colonic tattoo with sterile carbon particle suspension: a proposed guideline with illustrative cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 214-218