Limitations of the Location-Based and Polyp-Based Resect and Discard Strategies

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Location-based resect and discard (LBRD) and polyp-based resect and discard (PBRD) are 2 recently proposed strategies to minimize the cost of colonoscopy screening and surveillance. Our study applied these strategies to our colonoscopy database retrospectively to determine the applicability of these strategies in our screening and surveillance colonoscopy population.

METHODS

In total, 6024 elective screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies performed at the University of California, Irvine, were analyzed. We compared the LBRD and PBRD recommendations with longer and shorter 2020 United States Multi-Society Task Forces (USMSTF) surveillance interval recommendations. The primary outcome was the achievement of the 90% agreement threshold set by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations.

RESULTS

The LBRD strategy achieved 88.0% and 71.6% concordance with the longer and shorter 2020 USMSTF recommendation guidelines, respectively. The PBRD strategy only applied to 65.4% of procedures, with the remaining procedures still requiring pathologic evaluation. Among the applicable procedures, the PBRD strategy achieved 94.2% and 38.6% concordance with the longer and shorter USMSTF recommendation guidelines, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The PBRD strategy met the 90% preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations threshold only when using the longer USMSTF recommendations, but concordance dropped to 38.6% when using the shorter surveillance intervals, which are commonly used in the United States. Although resect and discard may decrease reliance on pathology, these 2 strategies do not achieve the level of concordance required to replace the use of pathology for diminutive polyps in our population.