AIM: To clarify whether subclassification of the type VI pit pattern on the basis of magnifying colonoscopy findings is useful in determining the type and depth of invasion of colorectal neoplasms.METHODS: We retrospe...AIM: To clarify whether subclassification of the type VI pit pattern on the basis of magnifying colonoscopy findings is useful in determining the type and depth of invasion of colorectal neoplasms.METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 272 colorectal neoplasms (117 dysplasias and 155 submucosal invasive carcinomas; 228 patients) with a type V pit pattern [type VI, n = 202; type VN, n = 70 (Kudo and Tsuruta classification system)]. We divided lesions with a type VI pit pattern into two subclasses, mildly irregular lesions and severely irregular lesions, according to the prominent and detailed magnifying colonoscopy findings. We examined the relation between these two subclasses and histology/invasion depth.RESULTS: One hundred and four lesions (51.5%) were judged to be mildly irregular, and 98 lesions (48.5%) were judged to be severely irregular. Ninety-seven (93.3%) mildly irregular lesions showed dysplasias or submucosal invasion of less than 1000 μm (SM < 1000 μm). Fifty-five (56.1%) severely irregular lesions showed submucosal invasion equal to or deeper than 1000 μm (SM ≥ 1000 μm). Mild irregularity was found significantly more often in dysplasias or lesions with SM < 1000 μm than in lesions with SM ≥ 1000 μm (P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: Subclassification of the type VI pit pattern is useful for identifying dysplasias or lesions with SM < 1000 μm.展开更多
AIM: To assess the appropriateness of referrals and to determine the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy according to the 2000 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).METHODS: A total of 7...AIM: To assess the appropriateness of referrals and to determine the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy according to the 2000 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).METHODS: A total of 736 consecutive patients (415males, 321 females; mean age 43.6±16.6 years)undergoing colonoscopy during October 2001-March2002 Were prospectively enrolled in the study. The 2000ASGE guidelines were used to assess the appropriateness of the indications for the procedure. Diagnostic yield was defined as the ratio between significant findings detected on colonoscopy and the total number of procedures performed for that indication.RESULTS: The large majority (64%) of patients had colonoscopy for an indication that was considered'generally indicated'; it was 'generally not indicated' for20%, and it was 'not listed' for 16% in the guidelines.The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was highest for the 'generally indicated' (38%) followed by 'not listed'(13%) and 'generally not indicated' (5%) categories.In the multivariable analysis, the diagnostic yield was independently associated with the appropriateness of indication that was 'generally indicated' (odds ratio=12.3) and referrals by gastroenterologist (odds ratio = 1.9).CONCLUSION: There is a high likelihood of inappropriate referrals for colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system. The diagnostic yield of the procedure is dependent on the appropriateness of indication and referring physician's specialty. Certain indications 'not listed' in the guidelines have an intermediate diagnostic yield and further studies are required to evaluate whether they should be included in future revisions of the ASGE guidelines.展开更多
基金a grant from the Japanese Society of Gastro-enterological Endoscopy, Chugoku Branch
文摘AIM: To clarify whether subclassification of the type VI pit pattern on the basis of magnifying colonoscopy findings is useful in determining the type and depth of invasion of colorectal neoplasms.METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 272 colorectal neoplasms (117 dysplasias and 155 submucosal invasive carcinomas; 228 patients) with a type V pit pattern [type VI, n = 202; type VN, n = 70 (Kudo and Tsuruta classification system)]. We divided lesions with a type VI pit pattern into two subclasses, mildly irregular lesions and severely irregular lesions, according to the prominent and detailed magnifying colonoscopy findings. We examined the relation between these two subclasses and histology/invasion depth.RESULTS: One hundred and four lesions (51.5%) were judged to be mildly irregular, and 98 lesions (48.5%) were judged to be severely irregular. Ninety-seven (93.3%) mildly irregular lesions showed dysplasias or submucosal invasion of less than 1000 μm (SM < 1000 μm). Fifty-five (56.1%) severely irregular lesions showed submucosal invasion equal to or deeper than 1000 μm (SM ≥ 1000 μm). Mild irregularity was found significantly more often in dysplasias or lesions with SM < 1000 μm than in lesions with SM ≥ 1000 μm (P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: Subclassification of the type VI pit pattern is useful for identifying dysplasias or lesions with SM < 1000 μm.
文摘AIM: To assess the appropriateness of referrals and to determine the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy according to the 2000 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).METHODS: A total of 736 consecutive patients (415males, 321 females; mean age 43.6±16.6 years)undergoing colonoscopy during October 2001-March2002 Were prospectively enrolled in the study. The 2000ASGE guidelines were used to assess the appropriateness of the indications for the procedure. Diagnostic yield was defined as the ratio between significant findings detected on colonoscopy and the total number of procedures performed for that indication.RESULTS: The large majority (64%) of patients had colonoscopy for an indication that was considered'generally indicated'; it was 'generally not indicated' for20%, and it was 'not listed' for 16% in the guidelines.The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was highest for the 'generally indicated' (38%) followed by 'not listed'(13%) and 'generally not indicated' (5%) categories.In the multivariable analysis, the diagnostic yield was independently associated with the appropriateness of indication that was 'generally indicated' (odds ratio=12.3) and referrals by gastroenterologist (odds ratio = 1.9).CONCLUSION: There is a high likelihood of inappropriate referrals for colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system. The diagnostic yield of the procedure is dependent on the appropriateness of indication and referring physician's specialty. Certain indications 'not listed' in the guidelines have an intermediate diagnostic yield and further studies are required to evaluate whether they should be included in future revisions of the ASGE guidelines.
