Mis-sizing of adenomatous polyps is common among endoscopists and impacts colorectal cancer screening recommendations

Thu Pham, Aung Bajaj, Lorela Berberi, Chengcheng Hu, Sasha Taleban

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Background/Aims: To determine the accuracy of identifying ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps during colonoscopy and define its impact on subsequent interval screening. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Banner University Medical Center, Tucson from 2011 to 2015. All patients with ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps based on their colonoscopy report were included. Adenomatous polyps were excluded if they did not meet the criteria. Discrepancies in the polyp size were determined by calculating the percentage of size variation (SV). Clinical mis-sizing was defined as SV >33%. Results: The polyps analyzed were predominantly <10 mm in size. Approximately 13% of the examined polyps met the inclusion criteria, and 40.7% of the adenomas were ≥10 mm. A total of 189 ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps were collected from 10 different gastroenterologists and a colorectal surgeon. Adenomatous polyps were clinically mis-sized in 56.6% of cases and overestimated in 71.4%. Among the adenomas reviewed, 22% of mis-sized polyps and 11% of non-mis-sized polyps resulted in an inappropriate surveillance interval. Conclusions: We found that more than half of ≥6-mm adenomatous polyps are mis-sized and that there is a tendency to overestimate adenoma size among endoscopists. This frequently leads to inappropriate intervals of surveillance colonoscopy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)485-490
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Endoscopy
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2018


  • Adenomatous polyps
  • Endoscopist estimate
  • Polyp size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology


Dive into the research topics of 'Mis-sizing of adenomatous polyps is common among endoscopists and impacts colorectal cancer screening recommendations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this