A Novel Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Submucosal Invasive Cancer Within Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

July 10, 2026 updated by: University Hospital, Ghent

Multi-centre Evaluation of a Novel Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Submucosal Invasive Cancer Within Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps - A Prospective Study

Colorectal cancer can be effectively prevented by removal of pre-malignant polyps during colonoscopy. Large (>=20mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) require careful assessment before treatment. If submucosal invasive cancer (SMI) is present, it determines whether endoscopic treatment can be curative or whether surgery is needed. Current classification systems to detect SMI are complex, require extensive training, and are underused in non-tertiary hospitals.

A simple web-based clinical decision support tool was created using well-established parameters (presence of a demarcated area, polyp size, Paris classification, location, and granularity) to identify SMI within LNPCPs. Crucially, the tool uses only standard endoscopic imaging available in most endoscopy units.

This prospective multi-centre study evaluates the accuracy of the tool during live endoscopic assessment. Endoscopists of varying experience will assess 10 large colorectal polyps using the tool, then undergo a randomized educational intervention (either a 10-minute instructional video or a 45-minute interactive training session). They will then assess a further 10 polyps using the tool. A third set of 10 assessments at 3 months evaluates durability of learning. Accuracy is compared to expert opinion.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Detailed Description

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death in the Western world. Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs, >=20mm) represent 2-3% of colorectal polyps and require special attention. The presence of submucosal invasive cancer (SMI) determines whether endoscopic treatment is curative or whether referral for surgery is necessary. Current endoscopic classification systems (JNET, Kudo, NICE) are complex, require specialized equipment, and extensive training, making them underused in non-tertiary practice.

A novel, freely accessible web-based clinical decision support tool (available at gieqs.com/SMI) was developed based on established risk factors for SMI: the presence and characteristics of a demarcated area within the polyp, polyp size (>=40mm), Paris classification, colonic location, and granularity. The tool uses only standard white-light and virtual chromoendoscopy available in the majority of Western endoscopy units.

This is a prospective, multi-centre study conducted across 8 centres in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Italy. The study evaluates whether endoscopists of varying experience can accurately detect SMI within LNPCPs during live colonoscopy using this tool.

The study follows a pre-post design with randomization of the educational intervention:

  • Phase 1 (Pre-training): Each endoscopist assesses 10 eligible LNPCPs using a standardized assessment and creates a 1-minute standardized video of each lesion.
  • Educational Intervention: Endoscopists are randomly allocated (1:1) to either (a) a 10-minute non-dynamic instructional video or (b) a 45-minute interactive educational session.
  • Phase 2 (Post-training): Each endoscopist assesses a further 10 LNPCPs using the clinical decision support tool.
  • Phase 3 (Durability): At 3 months, a further 10 assessments are performed to evaluate durability of the training effect.

Expert opinion applied to standardized videos serves as the reference standard. Histopathology results are recorded for all resected specimens. An interim analysis is planned when half the required participants are enrolled.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
886

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients with large (≥20mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) detected during colonoscopy or referred for endoscopic resection. Patients with sessile serrated lesions are excluded. Endoscopists must consent and complete the learning intervention. Patients must provide written informed consent for data collection. Participation is voluntary for both groups.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Endoscopist participants

  • Gastrointestinal endoscopists of varying abilities and grades
  • Endoscopists who have not previously encountered the clinical decision support tool Patient participants
  • Referred for colonoscopy with appropriate bowel preparation
  • Colorectal polyp >=20mm in size detected or referred for resection
  • Non-pedunculated morphology
  • Non-sessile serrated morphology
  • Signed informed consent for the procedure and trial participation

Exclusion Criteria:

Endoscopist participants:

  • Does not consent to inclusion
  • Does not undergo the learning intervention
  • No connection with endoscopy in gastroenterology

Patient participants:

  • Does not consent to data collection for the study
  • Video of inadequate quality as per opinion of the principal investigator

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Accuracy of Endoscopic Assessment of the Risk of Submucosal Invasive Cancer Within LNPCPs Using the Clinical Decision Support Tool Compared to Expert Opinion During Live Endoscopy
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
The accuracy of each endoscopist's assessment of SMI risk using the tool, compared to expert opinion applied to a standardised video of the same procedure. Measured as sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy across pre-training, post-training, and 3-month durability phases.
Through study completion, up to 48 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of LNPCP Assessments in Which a Demarcated Area Is Correctly Detected Using the Clinical Decision Support Tool, Compared to Expert Opinion
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Endoscopists assess presence/absence of a demarcated area on a standardised endoscopic video using the SMI clinical decision support tool. Expert opinion is the reference standard (considered 100% accurate). Accuracy = proportion of assessments concordant with the expert.
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Inter-observer Agreement Among Endoscopists in Detection of a Demarcated Area Within LNPCPs, Measured by Fleiss' Kappa
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Agreement among the multiple participating endoscopists rating the same standardised endoscopic videos, quantified by Fleiss' kappa (appropriate for 3+ raters; corrects for chance agreement).
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Percentage of Demarcated Areas in Which the JNET Classification Is Correctly Determined, Compared to Expert Opinion
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Endoscopists assign the JNET (Japan NBI Expert Team) classification to the demarcated area within each LNPCP. Expert opinion is the reference standard (considered 100% accurate). Accuracy = proportion of assessments in which the endoscopist's JNET category matches the expert reference.
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Percentage of Lesions in Which Each Morphological Component (Size, Location, Granularity, Paris Classification) Is Correctly Determined, Compared to Expert Opinion
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Each morphological component is assessed by the endoscopist and compared to the expert reference standard (considered 100% accurate). Accuracy = proportion of assessments concordant with the expert, reported separately for size, location, granularity, and Paris classification.
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Correct Treatment Decision Based Upon the Tool Score (Rate of Unnecessary Surgery for Benign Disease or Unnecessary Endoscopic Treatment Requiring Subsequent Surgery)
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Endoscopist-Reported Utility of the Clinical Decision Support Tool, Measured by a 5-point Likert-Scale Questionnaire
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Participating endoscopists complete a structured questionnaire rating the usability and perceived clinical utility of the tool on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = not useful, 5 = very useful).
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Difference in Scoring Accuracy Before and After the Educational Intervention, Comparing a 10-minute Instructional Video Versus a 45-minute Interactive Session
Time Frame: Through study completion, up to 48 months
Through study completion, up to 48 months
Percentage Accuracy of SMI Detection Using the Clinical Decision Support Tool at 3 Months Post-Intervention
Time Frame: 3 months after educational intervention
Endoscopists perform a further 10 LNPCP assessments 3 months after the educational intervention, using the SMI clinical decision support tool. Accuracy = proportion of assessments concordant with the expert reference standard (considered 100% accurate). Compared to immediately post-intervention accuracy to assess durability of the learning effect.
3 months after educational intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University Hospital, Ghent

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
October 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
September 1, 2030

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 30, 2030

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
June 4, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 10, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
July 15, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 15, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 10, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
July 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • ONZ-2022-0256

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings