Methods: All patients referred to St Vincent’s Hospital between 2009 and 2014 with LGD underwent Neratinib an assessment scope by a Barrett’s expert. Use of NBI and Seattle protocol biopsy were taken as standard. All suspicious areas were removed with EMR. An expert pathologist reviewed histopathology from the original gastroscopy and the assessment scope. Comparison was made between the worst pathology up until referral and after full assessment. Results: A total of 61 patients with LGD were identified. The median time between the referral scope and assessment scope was 3.5 months. After the assessment scope and pathology review 1 patient (1.6%) was diagnosed with early cancer and 9 patients (14.7%)

were diagnosed with HGD. Also 21 patients (31%) were

down-staged to non-dysplastic BE (NDBE). Of the 40 patients confirmed LGD after review of referral pathology, 10 (25%) had HGD or cancer on assessment endoscopy by Barrett’s expert. These findings are regarded as missed lesions on initial endoscopy rather than progression. Table 1   At Referral After Assessment Crizotinib research buy Scope and histology review LGD 61 30 (49.3%) HGD 0 9 (14.7%) Early Cancer 0 1 (1.6%) Non Dysplastic Barrett’s (NDBE) 0 21 (34.4%) Conclusion: We conclude that what is believed to be a quick progression from LGD to HGD is more likely due to missed lesions on initial scope. Also LGD in Barrett’s is an over-diagnosed entity by community pathologists. Thus this study highlights the importance of careful endoscopic assessment and review of histology of Barrett’s by an expert pathologist. 1. Curvers et al. Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010. R CAMERON Department Gastroenterology, Capital and Coast DHB, Wellington, NZ Introduction: Piecemeal resection of colonic polyps is associated with a significant recurrence rate (1) usually from residual polyp at the margins. Underwater EMR (UEMR) is a novel technique that allows resection of large

polyps without prior submucosal injection MCE公司 (2) and may reduce polyp recurrence rate through improved visualization of the resection margin. Described here is the initial experience of UEMR for removal of polyps ≥20 mm smallest diameter at a tertiary referral center. Materials and Methods: Audit review of consecutive cases from 28/6/2012 to 7/4/2014 of a single operator. UEMR carried out using a clear plastic cap (Olympus) and asymmetric 15 or 25 mm snare (Cook Medical) using 180 and 190 series colonoscopies. Sizing determined by comparison to the open snare. Follow-up procedures were performed according to the grading of polyp histology and patient comorbidities. Results: 32 resections were carried out in 30 patients. Polyp characteristics are presented in the Table. Polyp shortest diameter in mm, mean and range 29.