BACKGROUNDColorectal polyp size is important for assigning appropriate surveillance intervals, but conventional visual assessment (VA) often results in size misclassification.The use of a biopsy forceps (BF) might improve polyp size assessment as suggested in current guidelines. AIMTo compare measurement performance of BF-assisted size measurement with VA during real-time colonoscopy. METHODSA prospective, multicenter, international study was conducted at 5 tertiary hospitals.Patients aged ≥ 18 years scheduled for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included.Polyps were measured during colonoscopy with VA, BF, and a laser system (reference standard) and then removed and sent for histopathological assessment.The primary outcome was inter-method agreement of BF and VA compared to laserbased size measurement.Secondary outcomes included inter-method agreement between BF and VA and size misclassification.Furthermore, clinical implications were explored. RESULTSAmong 110 patients, 276 polyps were detected, including 138 with successful reference laser-based measurements, of which 137 were analyzed.Moderate agreement was found for BF and VA compared to laser measurements (κ = 0.534 vs 0.514) with wide limits of agreement (± 3 mm), while almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.863) was observed between BF and VA.Both BF and VA underestimated polyp size by -0.16 mm and -0.11 mm, 4 / 32 underestimating around 14%-50% of > 5 mm and ≥ 10 mm polyps and overestimating approximately 2%-11% of ≤ 5 mm and < 10 mm polyps.Around 2% of patients were assigned an incorrect surveillance interval using BF and VA, and when implementing a resect-and-discard strategy, 11% of ≤ 5 mm polyps would have undergone histopathology and 14% of > 5 mm polyps would have been discarded. CONCLUSIONBF-assisted size measurement performs similarly to conventional VA, without improving precision or reducing size misclassification.Thus, BF can unlikely replace VA in routine colonoscopy, nor be recommended in clinical guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerritsen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: