A comparison of endoscopy versus pathology sizing of colorectal adenomas and potential implications for surveillance colonoscopy

Background and AimsTo compare endoscopy and pathology sizing in a large population-based series of colorectal adenomas and to evaluate the implications for patient stratification into surveillance colonoscopy.MethodsEndoscopy and pathology sizes available from intact adenomas removed at colonoscopies performed as part of the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, from 2010 to 2015, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests were applied to compare size categories in relation to clinicopathological parameters and colonoscopy surveillance strata according to current American Gastroenterology Association and British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines.ResultsA total of 2521 adenomas from 1467 individuals were included. There was a trend toward larger endoscopy than pathology sizing in 4 of the 5 study centers, but overall sizing concordance was good. Significantly greater clustering with sizing to the nearest 5 mm was evident in endoscopy versus pathology sizing (30% vs 19%, p<0.001), which may result in lower accuracy. Applying a 10-mm cut-off relevant to guidelines on risk stratification, 7.3% of all adenomas and 28.3% of those 8 to 12 mm in size had discordant endoscopy and pathology size categorization. Depending upon which guidelines are applied, 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals had differing risk stratification for surveillance recommendations, with the use of pathology sizing resulting in marginally fewer recommended surveillance colonoscopies.ConclusionsChoice of pathology or endoscopy approaches to determine adenoma size will potentially influence surveillance colonoscopy follow-up in 4.8% to 9.1% of individuals. Pathology sizing appears more accurate than endoscopy sizing, and preferential use of pathology size would result in a small, but clinically important, decreased burden on surveillance colonoscopy demand. Careful endoscopy sizing is required for adenomas removed piecemeal.

Oral Bisphosphonate Exposure and the Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers

The association between oral bisphosphonate use and upper gastrointestinal cancer has been controversial. Therefore, we examined the association with esophageal and gastric cancer within the Kaiser Permanente, Northern California population. A total of 1,011 cases of esophageal (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) and 1,923 cases of gastric adenocarcinoma (cardia, non-cardia and other) diagnosed between 1997 and 2011 from the Kaiser Permanente, Northern California cancer registry were matched to 49,886 and 93,747 controls, respectively. Oral bisphosphonate prescription fills at least one year prior to the index date were extracted. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between prospectively evaluated oral bisphosphonate use with incident esophageal and gastric cancer diagnoses with adjustment for potential confounders. After adjustment for potential confounders, no significant associations were found for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.52), esophageal adenocarcinoma (OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.24), or gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.18), but we observed an adverse association with gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (OR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.07, 2.50). In conclusion, we observed no association between oral bisphosphonate use and esophageal cancer risk within a large community-based population. A significant association was detected with gastric cardia and other adenocarcinoma risk, although this needs to be replicated.