Keywords
Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - Colorectal cancer - Tissue diagnosis
- Diagnosis and imaging (inc chromoendoscopy, NBI, iSCAN, FICE, CLE...)
Introduction
Accurate endoscopic characterization of colorectal lesions is essential to predict
histology, but remains very difficult [1]. Lesions are characterized on the basis of real-time assessment of their macroscopic
appearance and vascular and pit pattern with magnification, both in white light and
with virtual chromoendoscopy. All validated criteria have been previously grouped
into a single table: the CONECCT (COlorectal Neoplasia Endoscopic Classification to
Choose the Treatment) classification ([Fig. 1]). This table significantly improves the histological prediction and therapeutic
choice of French gastroenterologists on still images produced by experts [1]
[2]
[3], but detection of the interest area needs to be improved. Indeed, characterization
reveals considerable histological heterogeneity within the lesion, with malignancy
often appearing in a focal zone within dysplastic lesions with completely different
prognoses. This crucial zone must be detected to predict the most unfavorable histology
and, therefore, to choose the right treatment [3]. Detection of these zones of interest is not easy, but they have the particularity
of potentially having a different color, as previously described, with a green zone
in virtual chromoendoscopy, creating a contrast with the color of the rest of the
lesion [4] or with yellow-speckled mucosa in white light surrounding the lesion, called chicken
skin. Although chicken skin mucosa has been associated with advanced colorectal adenoma
in previous studies, its histopathological mechanism remains unclear [5]
[6].
Fig. 1 The CONECCT Classification (version 3.1). EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection;
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESd, endoscopic submucosal dissection; LST, laterally
spreading tumor; VCE, virtual chromoendoscopy.
We conducted this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of presence of green sign
[4] or chicken skin aspects [5]
[6] for histological evaluation of consecutive colorectal lesions included in the prospective
Pro-CONECCT trial characterizing all colorectal lesions detected or referred for endoscopic
resection.
Patients and methods
Study design
We conducted a prospective observational cohort study (Pro-CONECCT, NCT05983315) at
our tertiary referral center in France, including patients who came for colonoscopy
between September 2021 and February 2023, either for screening or for endoscopic resection
of neoplastic lesions. During this period, all colorectal lesions detected during
colonoscopies were characterized by experienced endoscopists and the CONECCT classification
([Fig. 1]) was determined. All lesions were then completely resected to obtain their final
histology. Our ethics committee approved this study, and all patients gave informed
consent prior to the procedures.
Patients aged ≥18 years who required diagnostic colonoscopy due to digestive symptoms,
medical or family history of colorectal cancer or polyps, positive screening test,
acromegaly, or referred to our center for colorectal lesion resection were included.
We did not include patients with no colorectal lesions or no available histology,
a metastatic lesion diagnosed prior to colonoscopy, a colorectal lesion previously
resected by endoscopy, or presenting with adenomatous or sessile serrated polyposis
syndrome, or who had inflammatory bowel disease. Patients with submucosal lesions
were excluded from the study.
Procedures
All colonoscopies were performed by eight senior endoscopists, with the patient under
general anesthesia and using CO2 insufflation. Optical characterization of lesions was performed using high-definition
white light endoscopy followed by close-up examination assisted by virtual chromoendoscopy,
with or without magnification, using Olympus CF-HQ190L/I colonoscopes (Olympus, Tokyo,
Japan).
Histopathological examination was carried out by expert digestive pathologists according
to the Vienna and TNM classifications [7]
[8].
Study objectives
The primary objective was evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of the green sign and
chicken skin aspects for detection of superficial lesions accessible to curative endoscopic
treatment (low- and high-grade dysplastic adenoma, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, superficial
submucosal adenocarcinoma with <1000 µm submucosal invasion) and deep invasive lesions
requiring surgery (deep submucosal adenocarcinoma with >1000 µm submucosal invasion,
intramuscular or deeper T2-T3 cancer).
The green sign was defined in virtual chromoendoscopy by a clearly delimited area
of green color creating a spontaneous contrast with the color of other parts of the
lesion, whatever its size ([Fig. 2], [Fig. 3]).
Fig. 2 Endoscopic visualization of green sign in a white light imaging and b virtual chromoendoscopy. c Endoscopic visualization of chicken skin in white light imaging.
Fig. 3 Examples of endoscopic visualization of green sign (bounded by green line) and chicken
skin (bounded by yellow line). a,b CONECCT IIC+ lesion in the valvula, deep submucosal adenocarcinoma. c,d CONECCT III lesion in the transverse colon, T3 cancer. e,f CONECCT III lesion in the left colon, superficial submucosal adenocarcinoma. g,h CONECCT IIC+ lesion in the sigmoid, deep submucosal adenocarcinoma.
Chicken skin was defined in white light as an appearance of yellow-speckled mucosa
surrounding the lesion ([Fig. 2], [Fig. 3]).
Secondary endpoints were evaluation of the overall severity of the histology of colorectal
lesions with green sign or chicken skin compared with those without, with adjustment
for class of CONECCT classification. A cross-assessment between green sign, chicken
skin, and the CONECCT classification was carried out.
Data collection
Data collected were patient demographics including sex and age at the time of colonoscopy;
endoscopy indication and lesion characteristics: location, size, morphology, demarcation
line, green sign, chicken skin mucosa and classification according to Paris, Kudo,
Sano and CONECCT classifications.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation or as median with
the first and the third quartile. Categorical variables were presented as numbers
and percentages. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and
positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), with the associated
95% confidence interval (95% CI). Analysis of the association between green sign/chicken
sign on the severity of histology was performed by ordinal logistic regression and
quantified by an odds ratio with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Multivariable
analyses were performed with adjustment for CONECCT classification. Some patients
had multiple lesions, but for diagnostic accuracy, lesions from the same patient can
be considered independent. P <0.05 was considered significant. The analyses were performed using R software (version
4.1.2).
Results
Characteristics of patients and colorectal lesions
We prospectively included 461 patients with 803 colorectal lesions, median age 70
years (range, 63–76); 252 men and 209 women ([Fig. 4]). Patients and colorectal lesions characteristics are presented in [Table 1] and [Table 2], respectively.
Fig. 4 Flow chart of the study.
Table 1 Patient characteristics.
|
Characteristic
|
|
|
PET-CT, positron emission tomography-computed tomography.
|
|
Patients, n
|
461
|
|
|
|
|
252 (54.7)
|
|
|
209 (45.3)
|
|
|
|
|
70 (63–76)
|
|
|
|
|
91 (19.7)
|
|
|
131 (28.4)
|
|
|
74 (16.1)
|
|
|
163 (35.4)
|
|
|
26 (5.6)
|
|
|
1 (0.2)
|
|
|
23 (5.0)
|
Table 2 Colorectal lesion characteristics.
|
Characteristic
|
|
|
CONECCT, COlorectal Neoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment; JNET,
Japan NBI Expert Team; LST, laterally spreading tumor; NICE, NBI International Colorectal
Endoscopic; SD, standard deviation.
|
|
Lesions, n
|
803
|
|
|
25.92 (26.94)
|
|
|
23.05 (23.66)
|
|
|
|
|
138 (17.2)
|
|
|
49 (6.1)
|
|
|
171 (21.3)
|
|
|
83 (10.3)
|
|
|
77 (9.6)
|
|
|
21 (2.6)
|
|
|
57 (7.1)
|
|
|
105 (13.1)
|
|
|
101 (12.6)
|
|
|
|
|
290 (37.5)
|
|
|
85 (11.0)
|
|
|
150 (19.4)
|
|
|
42 (5.4)
|
|
|
51 (6.6)
|
|
|
62 (8.0)
|
|
|
|
|
211 (26.3)/592 (73.7)
|
|
|
|
|
132 (16.4)/671 (83.6)
|
|
|
|
|
127 (15.8)/676 (84.2)
|
|
|
|
|
101 (12.6)/702 (87.4)
|
|
|
|
|
54 (6.7)/749 (93.3)
|
|
|
|
|
26 (3.2)
|
|
|
90 (11.2)
|
|
|
115 (14.3)
|
|
|
4 (0.5)
|
|
|
1 (0.1)
|
|
|
8 (1.0)
|
|
|
481 (59.9)
|
|
|
69 (8.6)
|
|
|
2 (0.2)
|
|
|
2 (0.2)
|
|
|
5 (0.6)
|
|
|
|
|
45 (5.6)
|
|
|
104 (13.0)
|
|
|
312 (38.9)
|
|
|
279 (34.7)
|
|
|
34 (4.2)
|
|
|
29 (3.6)
|
|
|
|
|
145 (18.1)
|
|
|
445 (55.4)
|
|
|
150 (18.7)
|
|
|
63 (7.8)
|
|
|
|
|
152 (18.9)
|
|
|
589 (73.3)
|
|
|
62 (7.7)
|
The green sign
In our cohort, 15.8% of colorectal lesions (127/803) presented with a green sign
described by the endoscopists. After histological assessment, the green sign was described
in none of the 56 hyperplastic lesions, in 1.0% of the sessile serrated lesions (1/96),
in
8.6% of low- or high-grade dysplastic adenomas (43/498), in 31.3% of intramucosal
adenocarcinomas (26/83), in 80% of superficial submucosal adenocarcinomas (8/10 <1000
um), in 75.6% of deep submucosal adenocarcinomas (31/41) >1000 um) and in 94.7% of
intramuscular or deeper cancers (18/19) ([Table 3]). Lesions with the green sign were larger than those without the sign, with large
and small mean diameters of 45.02 mm (SD 25.82) and 39.00 mm (22.18), respectively,
for
lesions with the green sign and 22.33 mm (25.62) and 20.05 mm (22.73) for lesions
without
the sign. Pseudodepressed nongranular laterally spreading tumors were diagnosed in
33.3% of
lesions (41/127) with the green sign and 3.2% of lesions (21/676) without the green
sign. A
demarcation line was seen in 77.2% of lesions (98/127) with the green sign and 5%
of lesions
(34/676) without the green sign. Of the lesions with the green sign, 45.7% of lesions
with
the green sign (58/127) and 0.7% of lesions without the green sign (5/676) were classified
as Kudo Vn and 44.9% of the lesions with the green sign (57/127) and 0.7% of the lesions
without the green sign (5/676) were classified as Sano IIIb.
Table 3 Final histology of lesions according to green sign.
|
Characteristic
|
All lesions
|
Green sign
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Lesions, n
|
803
|
127
|
676
|
|
Histology, n (%)
|
|
|
56 (7.0)
|
0
|
56 (8.3)
|
|
|
96 (12.0)
|
1 (0.8)
|
95 (14.1)
|
|
|
498 (62.0)
|
43 (33.9)
|
455 (67.3)
|
|
|
83 (10.3)
|
26 (20.5)
|
57 (8.4)
|
|
|
10 (1.2)
|
8 (6.3)
|
2 (0.3)
|
|
|
41 (5.1)
|
31 (24.4)
|
10 (1.5)
|
|
|
19 (2.4)
|
18 (14.2)
|
1 (0.1)
|
Diagnostic accuracy of the green sign
The green sign had a negative predictive value of 89.6% [95% CI: 87.1–91.8%] and 98.1%
[95% CI: 96.7–99.0%] for superficial and deep invasive lesions, respectively. The
diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the green sign for the
detection of superficial and deep invasive lesions are presented in [Table 4].
Table 4 Diagnostic accuracy of green sign and chicken skin aspects for detection of superficial
and deep invasive lesions.
|
|
Sensitivity 95% CI
|
Specificity 95% CI
|
Positive predictive value 95% CI
|
Negative predictive value 95% CI
|
|
Superficial lesions
|
|
Green sign
|
54.2 (46.0–62.3)
|
93.2 (91.0–95.0)
|
65.4 (56.4–73.6)
|
89.6 (87.1–91.8)
|
|
Chicken skin
|
31.4 (24.1–39.4)
|
91.8 (89.5–93.8)
|
47.5 (37.5–57.7)
|
85.0 (82.2–87.6)
|
|
Green sign and chicken skin
|
44.3 (32.4–56.7)
|
90.5 (88.1–92.5)
|
30.7 (21.9–40.7)
|
94.4 (92.5–96.0)
|
|
Green sign or chicken skin
|
62.1 (53.9–69.8)
|
87.8 (85.1–90.3)
|
54.6 (46.9–62.1)
|
90.8 (88.2–92.9)
|
|
Deep invasive lesions
|
|
Green sign
|
81.4 (70.3–89.7)
|
90.5 (88.1–92.5)
|
44.9 (36.1–54.0)
|
98.1 (96.7–99.0)
|
|
Chicken skin
|
31.4 (24.1–39.4)
|
91.8 (89.5–93.8)
|
47.5 (37.5–57.7)
|
85.0 (82.2–87.6)
|
|
Green sign and chicken skin
|
42.9 (31.1–55.3)
|
96.7 (95.2–97.9)
|
55.6 (41.4–69.1)
|
94.7 (92.8–96.2)
|
|
Green sign or chicken skin
|
82.9 (72.0–90.8)
|
84.2 (81.3–86.7)
|
33.3 (26.4–40.9)
|
98.1 (96.7–99.0)
|
Association with colorectal lesion histology
The green sign had additional value for detecting superficial or deep lesions compared
with CONECCT classification alone (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for superficial lesions
7.1; 95% CI 4.2–12.0; P <0.001, adjusted OR for deep lesions 11.6; 95% CI 5.3–26.0; P <0.001) as well as CONECCT classification and chicken skin (adjusted OR for superficial
lesions 5.9; 95% CI 3.4–10.2; P <0.001, adjusted OR for deep lesions 9.0; 95% CI 3.9–21.1; P <0.001).
Chicken skin
In our study, 12.6% of colorectal lesions (101/803) presented with a chicken skin
aspect. After histological assessment, chicken skin was reported in none of the 56
hyperplastic lesions, in 2.1% of sessile serrated lesions (2/96), in 10.2% of low-
or high-grade dysplastic adenomas (51/498), in 20.5% of intramucosal adenocarcinomas
(17/83), in 40.0% of superficial submucosal adenocarcinomas (4/10 <1000 um), in 39.0%
of deep submucosal adenocarcinomas (16/41 > 1000 um), and in 57.9% of intramuscular
or deeper cancers (11/19) ([Table 5]). Lesions with chicken skin were larger than those without the sign, with large
and small mean diameters of 36.03 mm (SD 20.41) and 32.46 mm (SD 19.16), respectively,
for lesions with chicken skin and 24.47 mm (27.46) and 21.70 mm (23.95) for lesions
without it.
Table 5 Final histology of lesions according to chicken skin.
|
Characteristic
|
All lesions
|
Chicken skin
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Lesions, n
|
803
|
101
|
702
|
|
Histology, n (%)
|
|
|
56 (7.0)
|
0
|
56 (8.0)
|
|
|
96 (12.0)
|
2 (2.0)
|
94 (13.4)
|
|
|
498 (62.0)
|
51 (50.5)
|
447 (63.7)
|
|
|
83 (10.3)
|
17 (16.8)
|
66 (9.4)
|
|
|
10 (1.2)
|
4 (4.0)
|
6 (0.9)
|
|
|
41 (5.1)
|
16 (15.9)
|
25 (3.6)
|
|
|
19 (2.4)
|
11 (10.9)
|
8 (1.1)
|
Diagnostic accuracy of chicken skin
Chicken skin had a negative predictive value of 85.0% (95% CI 82.2–87.6%) for superficial
and deep invasive lesions. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and
NPV of the chicken skin for detection of superficial and deep invasive lesions are
presented in [Table 4].
Association with colorectal lesion histology
Chicken skin had additional value for detection of superficial or deep lesions compared
with CONECCT classification alone (adjusted OR 5.2; 95% CI 3.3–8.0; P <0.001, and 7.5; 95% CI 4.4–12.8; P <0.001, respectively). It also had additional value compared with CONECCT classification
and the green sign for detection of superficial lesions (adjusted OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.0–3.4;
P=0.036), but it was not possible to show additional value for deep lesions (adjusted
OR 2.1; 95% CI 0.9–4.7; P=0.063).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic description of presence or absence
of the green sign and chicken skin aspects, reporting that a green-colored area on
virtual chromoendoscopy, or green sign, could be associated with a more pejorative
histology of colorectal lesions, including after adjustment on the CONECCT classification
and the chicken skin aspect. In contrast, although chicken skin was associated with
neoplastic polyps in a recent study [5]
[6], it could not be associated with a more pejorative histology independent of CONECCT
classification and the green sign. Although the green sign alone is not sufficiently
reliable for affirming presence of superficial lesions that can be treated endoscopically
and deep invasive lesions requiring surgical treatment, absence of the green sign
could be used to exclude the diagnosis of these lesions.
Accurate real-time characterization of colorectal lesions during endoscopy is crucial
for histological prediction. After analyzing the macroscopic shape of a lesion with
white light imaging, the endoscopist should look for an existing area of degeneration
and then analyze these areas of interest in terms of vascular and mucosal relief.
However, the malignant components can sometimes represent a small area of the whole
lesion, and hence be relatively difficult to detect, especially for unexperienced
endoscopists. Some aspects of a lesion, clearly identifiable during analysis of the
lesion, can help the endoscopist identify these pejorative areas suspected of deep
invasion. These are areas with demarcation, depression, or even ulcerations or spontaneous
bleeding, and the green sign could be part of these warning signs or a red flag an
endoscopist should look for. Furthermore, the green sign appears to be more easily
detected on a distant view of the lesion, without the need to analyze the entire surface
with magnification, which can be time-consuming. A further study of green sign detection
in a population of gastroenterologists is needed to assess whether this sign could
be detected by general gastroenterologists.
Although artificial intelligence (AI) is now very effective at detecting lesions [9], human intervention is still required to detect colorectal lesions and AI can sometimes
be less effective at detecting flat lesions [10]. Furthermore, current development of computer-aided detection systems focuses on
assessment of neoplastic versus nonneoplastic lesions and is not geared toward predicting
invasion depth [9]. The development of systems dedicated to detection of the green sign would be a
valuable aid and would encourage gastroenterologists to examine this focal area.
Although chicken skin was described in 1998 as being due to macrophagic infiltration
with xanthomatous morphology [5], we found this infiltration only very rarely ([Fig. 5]). An increased number of lymphoid nodules visualized at the periphery of the invasive
carcinoma and corresponding to a hyperplastic reaction of the gut-associated lymphoid
tissue could at least partially explain the chicken skin with regularly scattered
small nodules lifting the mucosa. The green sign in chromoendoscopy is related to
an increased hemoglobin signal in the invasive zone [11]. The increased signal may be due to the increased visibility of submucosal blood
flow, which may be explained, on the one hand, by thinning of the mucosa compared
with the adenomatous mucosa, as invasive glands destroy the mucosa. On the other hand,
destruction of the muscularis mucosae by invasive glands may also contribute to the
increase in the hemoglobin detection signal, resulting in the green sign.
Fig. 5 Microscopic examination of the resection specimen containing a, b chicken skin and c,d green sign. Macrophagic infiltration with xanthomatous morphology (black arrow in
a), as previously described in other studies. Increased number of lymphoid nodules
at the periphery of invasive carcinoma (black arrow in b) corresponding to a hyperplastic reaction of the gut associated lymphoid tissue,
which could at least partially explain the chicken skin with regularly scattered small
nodules lifting the mucosa. Thinning of the mucosa (dotted double arrow in c) compared with the adenomatous mucosa (double arrow in c) as invasive glands destroy the mucosa. Destruction of the muscularis mucosae (black
arrow in d, in red) by invasive glands which may contribute to the increase in the hemoglobin
detection signal, resulting in the green sign.
The main limitation of this study is the use of a single endoscope brand and tertiary
center, which may not exactly reflect practice with lesions found in other centers.
Green sign detection may be less effective in less experienced centers.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the green sign is associated with a more pejorative histology of colorectal
lesions, irrespective of CONECCT classification and the chicken skin aspect. Targeting
these areas before precisely analyzing a lesion could be a way to improve detection
for inexperienced endoscopists and avoid missing malignancies in colorectal neoplasia.
