Guidance for setting easy-to-adopt competence criteria for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps: a simulation approach

Britt B. S. L. Houwen, Marjolein J. E. Greuter, Jasper L. A. Vleugels, Yark Hazewinkel, Raf Bisschops, Evelien Dekker*, Veerle M. H. Coupé

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


Background and Aims: One reason the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps has not yet been implemented is that the current competence criteria (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovation [PIVI] initiative) are difficult to use in daily practice. To provide guidance for setting alternative easy-to-adopt competence criteria, we determined the lowest proportion of diminutive polyps that should have a correct optical diagnosis to meet the PIVI. Methods: For this simulation study, we used datasets from 2 prospectively collected cohorts of patients who underwent colonoscopy in either a primary colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening setting. In the simulation approach, virtual endoscopists or computer-aided diagnosis systems performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps with a fixed diagnostic performance level (strategy) on all individuals in the cohort who had ≥1 diminutive polyp. Strategies were defined by systematically varying the proportion of correct optical diagnoses for each polyp subtype (ie, adenomas, hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesions). For each strategy, we determined whether PIVI-1 (≥90% agreement with U.S. or European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] surveillance guidelines) and PIVI-2 (≥90% negative predictive value [NPV] for neoplastic lesions in the rectosigmoid) were met using Monte Carlo sampling with 1000 repetitions, with histology as reference. Results: The level of overall diagnostic accuracy to achieve the PIVI differed significantly depending on the clinical setting and guidelines used. In the colonoscopy screening setting, all diagnostic strategies in which 92% of all diminutive polyps (regardless of histology) were diagnosed correctly led to 90% or more agreement with U.S. surveillance intervals (ie, PIVI-1). For all diagnostic strategies in which ≥89% of all diminutive polyps were correctly diagnosed, at least 90% NPV was achieved (ie, PIVI-2). For the FIT screening setting, values were respectively ≥77% and ≥94%. When using ESGE guidelines, PIVI-1 was in both settings already met when 40% of all diminutive polyps were diagnosed correctly. Conclusions: In contrast to the fixed PIVI criteria, our simulation study shows that different thresholds for the proportion of correctly diagnosed diminutive polyps lead to different clinical consequences depending on guidelines and clinical setting. However, this target proportion of diminutive colorectal polyps correctly diagnosed with optical diagnosis represents easier-to-adopt competence criteria.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)812-822.e43
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Issue number4
Early online date2021
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2021

Cite this