Validation of the GPAT – the Global Polypectomy Assessment Tool: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

BACKGROUND : Colorectal polypectomy is operator dependent, with variable rates of complete resection. The currently available assessment tools do not provide specific competency-based evaluation of provider technique. We aimed to validate the Global Polypectomy Assessment Tool (GPAT), a novel competency assessment tool for colorectal polypectomy. METHODS : GPAT was derived from the ESGE Curriculum for Training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon. Members of the curriculum taskforce plus three invited trainees and three medical students (collectively: the assessors) anonymously assessed nine endoscopic-view only polypectomy videos. The primary end point was the correlation of the assessors' GPAT scores with a consensus-derived reference GPAT score per video. Secondary end points were the assessors' subjective impression versus their GPAT score and interobserver agreement among assessors' GPAT scores. RESULTS : 171 GPAT assessments by 19 assessors (consultant gastroenterologists [n = 10], trainee gastroenterologists [n = 4], consultant surgeons [n = 2], and medical students [n = 3]) were analyzed. Reference GPAT scores did not differ significantly from those of the assessors (73.1 % [95 %CI 64.6 %-81.6 %] vs. 69.3 % [95 %CI 64.9 %-81.2 %]; <i>P</i> = 0.47). There was moderate IOA in GPAT scores among gastroenterologists (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.52 [moderate]) but not among nongastroenterologists (ICC 0.32 [poor]). GPAT correlated with assessors' subjective impression of polypectomy quality (correlation coefficient 0.98 [95 %CI 0.90-1.00]; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Overall assessors' qualitative usability scoring of GPAT was positive. CONCLUSIONS : GPAT allows standardized scoring of polypectomies, with moderate IOA among gastroenterologists and correlation with subjective impressions of polypectomy quality. GPAT could standardize assessment of trainee polypectomy competency offering structured feedback on performance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Endoscopy
Published
2025-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2541-4028
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

Validation of the GPAT – the Global Polypectomy Assessment Tool: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

David James Tate, Steven J. Heitman, Lobke Desomer, Marek Bugajski et al.
Endoscopy
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
article

Validation of the GPAT – the Global Polypectomy Assessment Tool: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

David James Tate, Steven J. Heitman, Lobke Desomer, Marek Bugajski, Ivo Boškoski, Siwan Thomas‐Gibson, Alexander C. De Crem, Ivan Lyutakov, Christophe Schoonjans, Michael J. Bourke, Tony Tham, Lynn Debels, Hiroshi Kashida, Lorenzo Fuccio, Liseth Rivero, Sander Smeets, Pradeep Bhandari, Henrik Thorlacius, Maria Eva Argenziano, Raf Bisschops, Ralph Lee, John T Anderson
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND : Colorectal polypectomy is operator dependent, with variable rates of complete resection. The currently available assessment tools do not provide specific competency-based evaluation of provider technique. We aimed to validate the Global Polypectomy Assessment Tool (GPAT), a novel competency assessment tool for colorectal polypectomy. METHODS : GPAT was derived from the ESGE Curriculum for Training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon. Members of the curriculum taskforce plus three invited trainees and three medical students (collectively: the assessors) anonymously assessed nine endoscopic-view only polypectomy videos. The primary end point was the correlation of the assessors' GPAT scores with a consensus-derived reference GPAT score per video. Secondary end points were the assessors' subjective impression versus their GPAT score and interobserver agreement among assessors' GPAT scores. RESULTS : 171 GPAT assessments by 19 assessors (consultant gastroenterologists [n = 10], trainee gastroenterologists [n = 4], consultant surgeons [n = 2], and medical students [n = 3]) were analyzed. Reference GPAT scores did not differ significantly from those of the assessors (73.1 % [95 %CI 64.6 %-81.6 %] vs. 69.3 % [95 %CI 64.9 %-81.2 %]; <i>P</i> = 0.47). There was moderate IOA in GPAT scores among gastroenterologists (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.52 [moderate]) but not among nongastroenterologists (ICC 0.32 [poor]). GPAT correlated with assessors' subjective impression of polypectomy quality (correlation coefficient 0.98 [95 %CI 0.90-1.00]; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Overall assessors' qualitative usability scoring of GPAT was positive. CONCLUSIONS : GPAT allows standardized scoring of polypectomies, with moderate IOA among gastroenterologists and correlation with subjective impressions of polypectomy quality. GPAT could standardize assessment of trainee polypectomy competency offering structured feedback on performance.

EndoscopyVol. 57(5)
Marche Polytechnic University (IT), Cheltenham General Hospital (GB), University of Calgary (CA), Lund University (SE), Ghent University Hospital (BE), Queen Giovanna Hospital (BG), Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT), Westmead Hospital (AU), Medical University of Sofia (BG), Ghent University (BE), Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), SHOWA Medical University Northern Yokohama Hospital (JP), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES), AZ Sint-Jan (BE), Skåne University Hospital (SE), AZ Delta (BE), The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology (PL), Consorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (ES), St Mark's Hospital (GB), University of Bologna (IT)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
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.