A97 LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED COLONIC POLYP (LNPCP) OUTCOMES REFERRED FOR ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic resection techniques have become the primary treatment strategy for the vast majority of large (≥ 20mm) non-pedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs). Despite this, surgery is still commonly performed with evidence suggesting an increasing trend over time. There is limited Canadian data confirming the effectiveness and safety of an endoscopic management strategy for LNPCPs. Purpose To investigate clinical outcomes of patients referred for endoscopic management of a LNPCP. Method Retrospective single-centre analysis of patients referred to a single endoscopist for the management of LNPCPs within a tertiary referral practice. LNPCPs were further subdivided into non-complicated (NC-LNPCP) or complicated (C-LNPCP) defined as those involving the ileocecal valve, appendiceal orifice, circumferential or previously attempted. Performance outcomes were evaluated by the frequencies of technical success (removal of all polypoid tissue during index procedure) and need for colorectal surgery. Safety was evaluated by the frequencies of clinically significant intraprocedural bleeding (CSIPB), clinically significant post-endoscopic resection bleeding (CSPEB), intra-procedural perforation and delayed perforation. Recurrence (either endoscopic or histologic) was evaluated at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Continuous variables were summarized using median (IQR). Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies (%). To test for association between categorical variables, the Pearson χ2 or the Fisher exact test were used, where appropriate. For continuous variables, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A probability (p) value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Result(s) Between January 2021 to March 2022, 263 LNPCP were referred for endoscopic resection and 41 LNPCP were excluded (23 pedunculated, 14 optical evaluation suggestive of deeply invasive cancer, 4 other). 222 LNPCP (188 NC-LNPCP, 34 C-LNPCP) underwent endoscopic resection. Median size was 25mm (IQR 20-30mm) with the majority undergoing cold snare resection (115, 51.8%). Polyposis (Adenomatous or serrated) was present in 23 (12.6%) cases respectively. Technical success was 97.3%. Cancer was present in 5 (2%). Clinically significant bleeding (CSPEB) occurred in 2.7%, DMI IV in 1.8% and there were no delayed perforations. Recurrence occurred in 4 (3.5%) at SC1 and 11 (5%) required surgery due to technical failure, submucosal invasion on pathology and clinically significant bleeding. Image Conclusion(s) Endoscopic resection as the primary treatment strategy for LNPCPs offers a safe and effective alternative to surgery in British Columbia. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».