Journal of Universal Surgery

  • ISSN: 2254-6758
  • Journal h-index: 6
  • Journal CiteScore: 0.94
  • Journal Impact Factor: 0.82
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • J-Gate
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
  • Zenodo
Share This Page

Research - (2022) Volume 10, Issue 10

Colorectal polyp’s description and Classification during colonoscopy- a Quality improvement audit

Tarek Garsaa1*, Umair Hassan2, Dr. Khandakar Rezwanur Rahman3 and Dr. Dayan Campino4
1(Consultant General and Colorectal Surgeon) Consultant General and Colorectal Surgeon, Ysbyty Gwynedd hospital, Bangor, UK
2Registrar, General and Colorectal Surgery, UK
3Junior Clinical Fellow, General and Colorectal Surgery, UK
4Junior Clinical Fellow, General and Colorectal Surgery, UK
*Correspondence: Tarek Garsaa, (Consultant General and Colorectal Surgeon) Consultant General and Colorectal Surgeon, Ysbyty Gwynedd hospital, Bangor, UK, Email:

Received: 30-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. IPJUS-22-13108; Editor assigned: 03-Oct-2022, Pre QC No. IPJUS-22-13108 (PQ); Reviewed: 17-Oct-2022, QC No. IPJUS-22-13108; Revised: 21-Oct-2022, Manuscript No. IPJUS-22-13108 (R); Published: 28-Oct-2022, DOI: 10.36648/2254- 6758.22.10.69


Bowel cancer (a general term for cancer that begins in the large bowel, and medically known as colorectal cancer) is the 4th most common type of cancer in the UK [1]. There are more than 40,000 new cases of bowel cancer each year, of which around 54% are preventable cases. Bowel cancer is the 2nd most common cause of cancer death in the UK, with greater than 15000 bowel cancer deaths in the UK every year. Like most cancers, prognosis is strictly dependent on early detection and treatment of premalignant and malignant lesions. Majority of bowel cancer arise from neoplastic polyps. The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme requires all polyps to be classified by an endoscopist using the Paris system- size, site and polyp morphology, as they influence assessment of malignancy in a lesion [2]. The Paris classification is both descriptive and predictive. PARIS Classification: This system allows classification for comparative and descriptive purposes and further allows prediction of polyp histology and direct appropriate therapy [3].

1. Polypoid type consists of pedunculated (type 0-Ip) & sessile (0-Is) morphologies.

2. Non-polypoid or flat types consist of flat or slightly elevated (type 0-IIA), completely flat (0-IIB) & slightly depressed but not ulcerated (0-IIC) morphologies.

3. Truly excavated or ulcerated superficial lesions (type 0-III) are never seen in the colon.

PIT Pattern Classification (Table 1)

The ACPGBI (Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland) recommends that endoscopists should estimate size of polyps and use the Paris classification to achieve the best prediction of malignancy. A previous audit done at the same hospital found a 41.38% discrepancy between the histology results & the polyps classified using PIT classification. The aim of this study was to find out the compliancy with ACPGBI recommendations by the Colorectal Department at the Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor [4].

Pit Pattern type Characteristics
I Roundish pits
II Stellar papillary pits
III S Small Roundish or tubular pits (Smaller than types 1 pits)
III L Large Roundish or tubular pits (Large than types 1 pits)
I branch like or gyrus like pits
II Non structured pits

Table 1: PIT Pattern Classification.


This audit was done as a retrospective study, taking a total sample of 452 patients from 1st January 2022 to 31st January 2022 at Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor [5, 6]. The patient list was generated from an electric database of all the people who underwent colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy during the mentioned period. The report for these 452 patients were reviewed manually and the size, site, morphology per PIT classification tabulated. The histology reports for the polyps were then checked and tabulated, to find out the mismatch between the endoscopist classifications with the histology report [7].


A total of 452 patients underwent colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy during the study period. 113 patients were found to have polyp(s) in their colon. 99 patients had polyps detected on colonoscopy and rest 14 during flexible sigmoidoscopy. The total number of polyps detected was 294 [8]. Out of them, 224 were resected and 70 were not resected. 157 polyps were described with compliance to the guideline (morphology, PIT, and size all 3 described), the rest 137 were Non-compliant (all 3 not described) [9].

Size of Polyps

The number of polyps with polyp size measured was 281, and 13 did not have their size measured. Majority of Polyps were 1 to 5 mm in size- 140 polyps (49.8%), while the second most common were in the range 6 to10mm -40 polyps (14.2%) [10, 11]. the size of polyps with their percentage is shown in the (Table 2) below.

Size Num of Polyps Percentage
1 to 5mm 140 polyps 49.80%
6 to10mm 40 polyps 14.20%
11 to15mm 13 4.60%
16 to 20mm 4 2.20%
>21mm 9 polyps 3.20%

Table 2: Sites of Polyps.

Site of Polyps

The site of polyp within the colon is also a risk factor where proximal colonic polyps are, size for size, at greater risk of containing malignancy [12]. The malignant risk for adenomas in the right colon (Proximal to the splenic flexure) was higher than that for similar-size left-sided or rectal polyps (Table 3) and (Figure 1).


Figure 1: Proximal to the splenic flexure.

Site Number Percentage (approx.)
Caecum 29 10%
Ascending colon Proximal 32 11%
Mid 8 3%
Distal 5 2%
Hepatic flexure 4 1%
Transverse colon Proximal 6 2%
Mid 12 4%
Distal 12 4%
Splenic Flexure 8 3%
Descending colon Proximal 11 3%
Mid 6 2%
Distal 14 5%
Sigmoid colon Proximal 32 11%
Distal 53 18%
Recto sigmoid 16 5%
Rectum 45 15%
Anal margin 2 1%

Table 3: Sites of Polyps.

Morphology of Polyps

Recognition of pattern and therefore clinical experience are important factors when describing morphology of polyps. Malignancy is more likely when the contour is irregular, when there is ulceration or when the consistency of the polyp (when probed gently) is hard or when the stalk broadens [13, 14]. These classical signs are not always evident, and more sophisticated classifications have been developed i.e., Paris classification. (Table 4).

Morphology Number of Polyps Percentage (approx.)
0-Is 129 44%
0-Isp 7 2%
0-Ip 18 6%
0-IIa 47 16%
0-IIb 0 0%
0-IIc 0 0%
0-3 0 0%
Not described 94 32%

Table 4: Histology of Polyp.

Histology of Polyp

Pit pattern Types I and II are non-neoplastic (normal or hyperplastic mucosa). Proximal hyperplastic polyps can belong to the serrated adenoma group and should be treated accordingly. Pit patterns IIIS (small), IIIL (large) and IV (gyriform) are most likely to be benign adenomas with a low risk of submucosal invasion [15-17].

Type V pit patterns indicate a high risk for invasion into at least the sub mucosa [18]. The type-V pit pattern can further be divided into Vn (with pits devoid of structure (non-structural)) and VI (where pits are irregular). This sub classification is appreciated only with magnifying chromo endoscopy. Pit pattern VI (irregular) may be on the surface of a benign lesion but submucosal invasion can also occur [19,20]. Vn has the highest likelihood of malignancy. (Table 5).

Histological Type Number Percentage (approx.)
Adenocarcinoma 2 0.68%
High grade Tubular Adenoma 1 0.34%
Low grade Tubular Adenoma 106 35.90%
Tubulo Villous 23 7.84%
Serrated Adenoma 24 8.14%
Hyperplastic 44 14.91%
Inflammatory 7 2.37%
Metaplastic 1 0.34%
Normal Mucosa 3 1.01%
Not done 84 28.47%

Table 5: Discrepancy between PIT and Histology.

Discrepancy between PIT and Histology

The total number of polyps classified as per PIT classification was 219, and the total number of PIT classified polyp resected and sent for histopathology was 169. Summary:

1. Polyp classified as Type-I: 1 serrated adenoma. No Discrepancy.

2. Classified as Type-II: 1 normal mucosa, 12 hyperplastic, 8 serrated adenoma, 11 Tubular adenoma (Low grade) and 1 tubulovillous adenoma. Discrepancy of 7.10%.

3. 1 classified as 3a: 1 serrated adenoma. Discrepancy of 0.59%.

4. 58 classified as Type-IIIs: 7 serrated adenoma, 14 hyperplastic, 5 inflammatory, 1 metaplastic, 27 low grade tubular adenoma, 4 tubulovillous adenoma. Discrepancy of 15.98%

5. 37 classified as Type-IIIL: 1 normal mucosa, 4 hyperplastic, 1 inflammatory, 25 Low grade tubular adenoma, 1 high grade tubular adenoma, 4 tubulovillous adenoma, 1 adenocarcinoma. Discrepancy of 3.55%.

6. 8 classified as Type IV: 1 Hyperplastic, 2 Low grade tubular adenoma, 5 tubulovillous adenoma. Discrepancy of 0.59%

7. 2 classified as Type-V: 1 Low grade Tubular adenoma, 1 tubulovillous adenoma. Discrepancy of 1.18%

In total, 71.01% of the polyps had no discrepancy between their descriptions by the endoscopists and their histopathology report, while 28.99% did have discrepancy [21-23].


From this audit we have seen that 100% of endoscopist have described the site of polyps, but 95.25% have described the size of polyps, and 94 polyps (31.86 %) lacked morphology description. There is 28.99% discrepancy between the histology results & the polyps classified using PIT classification. This is an improvement from 41.38% discrepancy from the first cycle of audit [24]. Through this audit it is found that a greater number of endoscopists used the PIT & PARIS classification in describing the polyps compared to the previous audit [25].


  1. Kashida H, Sasako M, Shimoda T, Hisashi Watanabe S, Yoshida M, et al. (2003) The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: oesophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointestinal Endosc 58: 3.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  4. Type/bowel-cancer#heading-Four

  5. Williams JG 1, Pullan RD, Horgan PG, E Salmo, Buchanan GN, et al. (2014) Management of the malignant colorectal polyp: ACPGBI position statement. Colorectal Dis 15: 1-38.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  7. Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA, editors (2000) WHO classification of tumours. Tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  9. Dixon MF (2002) gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut 51: 130.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  11. Schlemper RJ, Hirata I, Dixon MF (2002) The macroscopic classification of early neoplasia of
  12. The digestive tract. Endoscopy 34: 163-168.

    Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  13. Rey JF, Lambert R (2001) ESGE Quality Assurance Committee. ESGE recommendations for quality control in gastrointestinal endoscopy: guidelines for image documentation in upper and lower GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 33: 901-903.
  14. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  15. Sakashita M, Aoyama N, Maekawa S, Kuroda K, Shirasaka D, et al.  (2000) Flat elevated and depressed, subtypes of flat early colorectal cancers should be distinguished by their pathological features. Int J Colorectal Dis 5: 275-281.
  16. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  17. George SM, Makinen MJ, Jernvall P, Makela J, Karttunen TJ, et al. (2000) Classification of advanced colorectal carcinomas by tumor edge morphology: evidence for different pathogenesis and significance of polypoid and nonpolypoid tumors. Cancer 89: 1901-1909.
  18. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  19. Kudo S, Hirota S, Nakajima T, Hosobe S, Kusaka H, et al. (1994) Colorectal tumours and pit pattern. J Clin Pathol 47: 880-885.
  20. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  21. Kawano H, Tsuruta O, Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR, et al. (2001) Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy 33: 367-373.
  22. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  23. Matsuda T, Fujii T, Ono A, Kozu T, Saito Y, et al. (2003) Effectiveness of magnifying colonoscopy in diagnosing the depth of invasion of colorectal neoplastic lesions: invasive pattern is an indication for surgical treatment [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 575: AB176.
  24. Google Scholar, Crossref

  25. Postic G, Lewin D, Bickerstaff C, Wallace MB (2002) Colonoscopic miss rates determined by direct comparison of colonoscopy with colon resection specimens. Am J Gastroenterol 97: 3182-3185.
  26. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  27. Bond JH (2000) Polyp guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance for patients with colorectal polyps practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 95: 3053?
  28. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  29. Chung SJ, Kim YS, Yang SY (2011) Five-year risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia after initial colonoscopy according to the baseline risk stratification: a prospective study in 2452 asymptomatic Koreans. Gut 60: 1537.
  30. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  31. Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D (2020) The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 76:182.
  32. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  33. Patel K, Hoffman NE (2001) the anatomical distribution of colorectal polyps at colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 33:222.
  34. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  35. Butterly LF, Chase MP, Pohl H, Fiarman GS (2006) Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4: 343.
  36. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  37. Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J (2008) Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 135: 1100.
  38. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  39. Konishi F, Morson BC (1982) Pathology of colorectal adenomas: a colonoscopic survey. J Clin Pathol 35:830.
  40. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  41. Shaukat A, Kaltenbach T, Dominitz JA (2020) Endoscopic Recognition and Management Strategies for Malignant Colorectal Polyps: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 159: 1916.
  42. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  43. Wieszczy P, Kaminski MF, Franczyk R (2020) Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Removal of Adenomas during Screening Colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 158: 875.
  44. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  45. Komuta K, Batts K, Jessurun J (2004) Interobserver variability in the pathological assessment of malignant colorectal polyps. Br J Surg 91: 1479.
  46. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

  47. Atkin WS, Saunders BP (2002) British Society for Gastroenterology, Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 51 Suppl 5: 6.
  48. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  49. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM Post-polypectomy colonoscopy. Endoscopy 52: 687-700.
  50. Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

Citation: Garsaa T, Hassan U, Rahman KR, Campino D (2022) Colorectal Polyp’s Description and Classification during Colonoscopy- a Quality Improvement Audit. J Uni Sur, Vol. 10 No. 10: 69.