A111 EVALUATION OF REFERRAL COMPLETENESS FOR LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED POLYPS IN LIGHT OF RECENT INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS: A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY

Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard-of-care for treating large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps yet often requires referral to expert centers. Hence, inclusion of important information to the therapeutic endoscopist is essential for pre-procedure planning. A recent international consensus statement, comprised of 19 components, aims to improve triage and planning of endoscopic resection for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. We sought to determine the current status of inclusion of these reporting elements in referrals to our tertiary center. Aims 1- Report the rate of complete referrals in light of the international expert consensus statement 2- Investigate the degree of correlation of polyp adjudication between referring endoscopist and local advance therapeutic endoscopiest assessment 3- Explore factors predicting comprehensive reporting Methods Single-center review of prospectively collected colorectal polyp referrals for large non-pedunculated polyps from March 2021 to March 2023. Results 411 referrals for large polyps were received; median size 3 cm; 58% located in ascending colon. 89 % of referrals included the initial assessment date, and only 38% incorporated video or photo documentation, of which 44% were deemed sufficient to demonstrate polyp features. Anatomical location was reported in 96% of referrals, while polyp size was mentioned in only half of the referrals (50%). Polyp morphology was described in 91% as either sessile (n=360) or pedunculated (n=35). Paris classification was reported in 53% of referrals, and LST classification in 90%. 12% of referrals reported four elements of less, while 18% of referrals reported all elements. Correlations with our own endoscopic assessments were diverse, ranging from a robust correlation for anatomical location (r=0.82, 95%CI 0.78-0.86, p < 0.001) to a more modest correlation for Paris classification (r=0.44, 95%CI 0.35-0.52 p < 0.001). Conclusions Our study reveals deficiencies in current referral practices and emphasizes the consensus statement’s role in improving the process. Consequences of low-quality referrals may include compromised patient care, leading to delayed diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and potentially compromised patient outcomes. Thus, we have identified a likely knowledge gap in polyp characterization among referring physicians that will be a focus of a subsequent QI initiative. Funding Agencies None

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwae059.111
Primary Topic
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A111 EVALUATION OF REFERRAL COMPLETENESS FOR LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED POLYPS IN LIGHT OF RECENT INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS: A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY

Christopher Teshima, Khaled Khalaf, Balqis Alabdulkarim, Jeffrey D. Mosko et al.
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
article

A111 EVALUATION OF REFERRAL COMPLETENESS FOR LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED POLYPS IN LIGHT OF RECENT INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS: A SINGLE-CENTER STUDY

Christopher Teshima, Khaled Khalaf, Balqis Alabdulkarim, Jeffrey D. Mosko, Gary R. May
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard-of-care for treating large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps yet often requires referral to expert centers. Hence, inclusion of important information to the therapeutic endoscopist is essential for pre-procedure planning. A recent international consensus statement, comprised of 19 components, aims to improve triage and planning of endoscopic resection for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. We sought to determine the current status of inclusion of these reporting elements in referrals to our tertiary center. Aims 1- Report the rate of complete referrals in light of the international expert consensus statement 2- Investigate the degree of correlation of polyp adjudication between referring endoscopist and local advance therapeutic endoscopiest assessment 3- Explore factors predicting comprehensive reporting Methods Single-center review of prospectively collected colorectal polyp referrals for large non-pedunculated polyps from March 2021 to March 2023. Results 411 referrals for large polyps were received; median size 3 cm; 58% located in ascending colon. 89 % of referrals included the initial assessment date, and only 38% incorporated video or photo documentation, of which 44% were deemed sufficient to demonstrate polyp features. Anatomical location was reported in 96% of referrals, while polyp size was mentioned in only half of the referrals (50%). Polyp morphology was described in 91% as either sessile (n=360) or pedunculated (n=35). Paris classification was reported in 53% of referrals, and LST classification in 90%. 12% of referrals reported four elements of less, while 18% of referrals reported all elements. Correlations with our own endoscopic assessments were diverse, ranging from a robust correlation for anatomical location (r=0.82, 95%CI 0.78-0.86, p < 0.001) to a more modest correlation for Paris classification (r=0.44, 95%CI 0.35-0.52 p < 0.001). Conclusions Our study reveals deficiencies in current referral practices and emphasizes the consensus statement’s role in improving the process. Consequences of low-quality referrals may include compromised patient care, leading to delayed diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and potentially compromised patient outcomes. Thus, we have identified a likely knowledge gap in polyp characterization among referring physicians that will be a focus of a subsequent QI initiative. Funding Agencies None

Journal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologyVol. 8(Supplement_1)
University of Toronto (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.