scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Prasanna L. Ponugoti

Bio: Prasanna L. Ponugoti is an academic researcher from Indiana University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Colonoscopy & Adenoma. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 25 publications receiving 494 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to the full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) system was performed.

97 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results support the safety of resect and discard as well as current CT colonography reporting recommendations for small and diminutive polyps.

88 citations

01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view.
Abstract: Background and Aims Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. Methods We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). Results Among 1188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC mean ± standard deviation: 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96; P Conclusions For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02345889.)

71 citations

01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluated a prospectively collected colonoscopy polyp database to identify polyps <10mm and those with cancer or advanced histology (high-grade dysplasia or villous elements).
Abstract: The prevalence of cancer in small and diminutive polyps is relevant to "resect and discard" and CT colonography reporting recommendations. We evaluated a prospectively collected colonoscopy polyp database to identify polyps <10mm and those with cancer or advanced histology (high-grade dysplasia or villous elements). Of 32,790 colonoscopies, 15,558 colonoscopies detected 42,630 polyps <10mm in size. A total of 4790 lesions were excluded as they were not conventional adenomas or serrated class lesions. There were 23,524 conventional adenomas <10mm of which 22,952 were tubular adenomas. There were 14,316 serrated class lesions of which 13,589 were hyperplastic polyps and the remainder were sessile serrated polyps. Of all conventional adenomas, 96 had high-grade dysplasia including 0.3% of adenomas ≤5mm in size and 0.8% of adenomas 6-9mm in size. Of all conventional adenomas, 2.1% of those ≤5mm in size and 5.6% of those 6-9mm in size were advanced. Among 36,107 polyps ≤5mm in size and 6523 polyps 6-9mm in size, there were no cancers. These results support the safety of resect and discard as well as current CT colonography reporting recommendations for small and diminutive polyps.

57 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Use of an overall ADR rather than screening-only ADR could simplify ADR measurement, increase the number of examinations available to measure ADR, seldom affect whether a doctor meets recommended ADR thresholds, and eliminate the potential for gaming the ADR by changing the colonoscopy indication.
Abstract: Background Current recommendations are to calculate the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies only. The need to confine the measure to screening has not been established. Methods We retrospectively assessed our quality database for whether calculating ADR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopies (overall ADR) would alter conclusions about the performance of colonoscopists, compared to using an ADR based only on screening colonoscopies. We also prospectively tested the extent to which one physician could corrupt the screening-only ADR by changing the procedure indication after reviewing the examination findings. Results For 15 physicians, screening ADRs differed from the overall ADR by a mean of 2.6 percentage points (range 0 – 6.9 percentage points). Using the overall ADR rather than screening ADR changed the ADR from just below to just above the recommended screening threshold for one physician. In the prospective assessment, a single expert colonoscopist utilized indication gaming in patients with both screening and diagnostic indications and was able to increase his apparent screening-only ADR from 48.4 % to 55.1 %. Conclusions Use of an overall ADR rather than screening-only ADR could simplify ADR measurement, increase the number of examinations available to measure ADR, seldom affect whether a doctor meets recommended ADR thresholds, and eliminate the potential for gaming the ADR by changing the colonoscopy indication.

55 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This document updates the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectals and suggests that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening.

522 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2019-Gut
TL;DR: An AI model trained on endoscopic video can differentiate diminutive adenomas from hyperplastic polyps with high accuracy and should be used in a live patient clinical trial setting to address resect and discard.
Abstract: Background In general, academic but not community endoscopists have demonstrated adequate endoscopic differentiation accuracy to make the ‘resect and discard’ paradigm for diminutive colorectal polyps workable. Computer analysis of video could potentially eliminate the obstacle of interobserver variability in endoscopic polyp interpretation and enable widespread acceptance of ‘resect and discard’. Study design and methods We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model for real-time assessment of endoscopic video images of colorectal polyps. A deep convolutional neural network model was used. Only narrow band imaging video frames were used, split equally between relevant multiclasses. Unaltered videos from routine exams not specifically designed or adapted for AI classification were used to train and validate the model. The model was tested on a separate series of 125 videos of consecutively encountered diminutive polyps that were proven to be adenomas or hyperplastic polyps. Results The AI model works with a confidence mechanism and did not generate sufficient confidence to predict the histology of 19 polyps in the test set, representing 15% of the polyps. For the remaining 106 diminutive polyps, the accuracy of the model was 94% (95% CI 86% to 97%), the sensitivity for identification of adenomas was 98% (95% CI 92% to 100%), specificity was 83% (95% CI 67% to 93%), negative predictive value 97% and positive predictive value 90%. Conclusions An AI model trained on endoscopic video can differentiate diminutive adenomas from hyperplastic polyps with high accuracy. Additional study of this programme in a live patient clinical trial setting to address resect and discard is planned.

437 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) when persons up to date with screening, who have prior screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of ColoreCTal Cancer (MSTF), are required.

407 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Advanced imaging techniques will need to be applied in specific patient groups in routine clinical practice and to be taught in endoscopic training programs.
Abstract: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the role of advanced endoscopic imaging for the detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia. Main recommendations 1 ESGE suggests the routine use of high definition white-light endoscopy systems for detecting colorectal neoplasia in average risk populations (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (narrow band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected Lynch syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2b ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (NBI) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected serrated polyposis syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends the routine use of 0.1 % methylene blue or 0.1 % – 0.5 % indigo carmine pancolonic chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis. In appropriately trained hands, in the situation of quiescent disease activity and adequate bowel preparation, nontargeted, four-quadrant biopsies can be abandoned (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy (NBI, FICE, i-SCAN) and conventional chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained and audited (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE suggests the use of conventional or virtual (NBI) magnified chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of invasive cancer and deep submucosal invasion in lesions such as those with a depressed component (0-IIc according to the Paris classification) or nongranular or mixed-type laterally spreading tumors (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Conclusion Advanced imaging techniques will need to be applied in specific patient groups in routine clinical practice and to be taught in endoscopic training programs.

363 citations