Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy

Linked color imaging versus white light imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Miss rate of colorectal neoplasia is associated with lesion histology, size, morphology, or location.

Objectives

We aim to compare the efficacy of Linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light imaging (WLI) for adenoma detection rate (ADR), the detection of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), serrated lesions (SLs), advanced adenomas (AAs), diminutive lesions (DLs), and flat lesions (FLs) by using per-patient and per-lesion analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 1st, 2023. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, and performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses.

Results

Overall, 17 RCTs (10,624 patients) were included. In per-patient analysis, ADR was higher in the LCI group versus the WLI group (p < 0.00001). This effect was consistent for SSL (p = 0.005), SLs (p = 0.01), AAs (p = 0.04), DLs (p < 0.00001), and FLs (p < 0.0001). In per-lesion analysis, LCI showed a significant superiority over WLI with regard to the mean number of adenomas per patient (p < 0.00001). This effect was in accordance with mean SSL (p = 0.001), mean SLs (p < 0.00001), and mean DLs (p < 0.0001) per patient. A subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effect of the LCI group on the detection of AAs, SSL, and FLs was maintained only for studies when experts and trainees were included but not for experts only.

Conclusions

Meta-analyses of RCTs data support the use of LCI in clinical practice, especially for trainees.

Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Background

The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.

Results

A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Quality indicators for colonoscopy in Egypt: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Despite its wide availability, we do not have sufficient data aboutthe quality of colonoscopy in Egypt. In this study, we proposed 13 indicators to assess the quality of colonoscopy procedures in the included study centers aiming to attain a representative image of the quality of CS in Egypt.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter prospective study was conducted between July and December 2020, which included all patients who underwent colonoscopy in the participating centers. The following were the proposed quality indicators: indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure clinical assessment, obtaining written informed consent, adequate colon preparation, sedation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complication rate, photographic documentation, automated sterilization, regular infection control check, and well-equipped postprocedure recovery room.

RESULT

A total of 1,006 colonoscopy procedures were performed during the study duration in the included centers. Our analysis showed the following four indicators that were fulfilled in all centers: appropriate indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure assessment, written informed consent, and automated sterilization. However, photographic documentation and postprocedure follow-up room were fulfilled only in 57 %. Furthermore, 71 % of the centers performed regular infection control checks. Adequate colon preparation was achieved in 61 % of the procedures, 81 % of the procedures were performed under sedation, 95.4 % CIR, 11-min mean withdrawal time, 15 % ADR, and 0.1 % overall complication rate. Statistically significant factors affecting CIR were age > 40 years, high-definition endoscope, previous colon intervention, and rectal bleeding, whereas those affecting ADR were age > 40 years, the use of image enhancement, previous colon intervention, rectal bleeding, the use of water pump, and a withdrawal time of > 9 min.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed the bright aspects of colonoscopy practice in Egypt, including high CIRs and low complication rates; conversely, ADR, bowel cleansing quality, and infection control measures should be improved.

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.

RESULTS

We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

To prepare for colonoscopy, patients must consume a bowel purgative and travel from their home to the site of their procedure. The timing of bowel purgative ingestion predicts bowel preparation quality. Currently, it is not known if driving distance impacts bowel preparation quality or adenoma detection.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the effect of driving distance on bowel preparation and adenoma detection.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures that were completed at an academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5089 patients who completed screening colonoscopy across 3 procedure units were analyzed.

MAIN MEASURES

Description of bowel preparation was dichotomized to either adequate or inadequate. Patient residential addresses were converted into geographic coordinates for geospatial analysis of driving distance to their colonoscopy site.

KEY RESULTS

Median driving distance was 13.1 miles. Eighty-nine percent of patients had an adequate bowel preparation. The rate of adenoma detection was 37%. On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance, endoscopist, and site, increasing driving distance (10-mile increments) was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), while adenoma detection was positively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.88) but not with driving distance (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06). Driving distances of 30 miles or less were associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing driving distance to screening colonoscopy was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation but not adenoma detection. Among an academic medical center population, the likelihood of adequate bowel preparation was highest in patients traveling 30 miles or less to their screening colonoscopy. Patient driving distance to colonoscopy is an important consideration in optimizing screening colonoscopy quality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing vs Colonoscopy or Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Alaska Native People

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019.

RESULTS

With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists' sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

INTRODUCTION : Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson's rho correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % - 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % - 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % - 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % - 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (-0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (-0.12; P = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

The Case for High-Quality Colonoscopy Remaining a Premier Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategy in the United States

Most colorectal cancer screening in the United States occurs in the opportunistic setting, where screening is initiated by a patient-provider interaction. Colonoscopy provides the longest-interval protection, and high-quality colonoscopy is ideally suited to the opportunistic setting. Both detection and colonoscopic resection have improved as a result of intense scientific investigation. Further improvements in detection are expected with the introduction of artificial intelligence programs into colonoscopy platforms. We may expect recommended intervals or colonoscopy after negative examinations performed by high-quality detectors to expand beyond 10 years. Thus, high-quality colonoscopy remains an excellent approach to colorectal cancer screening in the opportunistic setting.

Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of having quality assessment, assurance, and improvement tools in health care is increasingly recognized. However, the additional associated administration burden progressively interferes with the structural implementation and adoption of such tools, especially when it concerns high-volume procedures such as colonoscopies. The development of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA), a registry with automated extraction of colonoscopy quality data, and its first results are described.

METHODS

In close cooperation with commercial endoscopy reporting systems and a national histopathology database, healthcare professionals performing colonoscopies initiated a quality registry that extracts data from its core hospital resource or histology database without manual interference of the healthcare providers. Data extracted consisted of patient age, gender, indication of the colonoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and cecal intubation; for the colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test in the colorectal cancer screening program, other data were polyp detection rate, which was available for all 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers, and adenoma detection rate, which was available for 26 hospitals or endoscopy centers.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019, 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers voluntarily participated in the DGEA, and 275,017 unique patients with 313,511 colonoscopies were registered. Overall missing values were limited to <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to deploy a quality registry collecting uniform data without additional administration burden for healthcare professionals.

Association of Adenoma and Proximal Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates With Endoscopist Characteristics

Importance

Research demonstrates adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rate (pSSPDR) are associated with endoscopist characteristics including sex, specialty, and years in practice. However, many studies have not adjusted for other risk factors associated with colonic neoplasia.

Objective

To assess the association between endoscopist characteristics and polyp detection after adjusting the factors included in previous studies as well as other factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted in the Cleveland Clinic health system with data from individuals undergoing screening colonoscopies between January 2015 and June 2017. The study analyzed data using methods from previous studies that have demonstrated significant associations between endoscopist characteristics and ADR or pSSPDR. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to examine 7 endoscopist characteristics associated with ADRs and pSSPDRs after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and colonoscopy-associated factors.

Exposures

Seven characteristics of endoscopists performing colonoscopy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The ADR and pSSPDR, with a hypothesis created after data collection began.

Results

A total of 16 089 colonoscopies were performed in 16 089 patients by 56 clinicians. Of these, 8339 patients were male (51.8%), and the median (range) age of the cohort was 59 (52-66) years. Analyzing the data by the methods used in 4 previous studies yielded an association between endoscopist and polyp detection; surgeons (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.83]) and nongastroenterologists (OR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.29-0.85]) had reduced odds of pSSPDR, which was similar to results in previous studies. In a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, ADR was not significantly associated with any endoscopist characteristic, and pSSPDR was only associated with years in practice (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89] per increment of 10 years; P < .001) and number of annual colonoscopies performed (odds ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01-1.09] per 50 colonoscopies/year; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

The differences in ADRs that were associated with 7 of 7 endoscopist characteristics and differences in pSSPDRs that were associated with 5 of 7 endoscopist characteristics in previous studies may have been associated with residual confounding, because they were not replicated in this analysis. Therefore, these characteristics should not influence the choice of endoscopist for colorectal cancer screening. However, clinicians further from their training and those with lower colonoscopy volumes have lower adjusted pSSPDRs and may need additional training to help increase pSSPDRs.

Learning colon centreline from optical colonoscopy, a new way to generate a map of the internal colon surface

Optical colonoscopy is known as a gold standard screening method in detecting and removing cancerous polyps. During this procedure, some polyps may be undetected due to their positions, not being covered by the camera or missed by the surgeon. In this Letter, the authors introduce a novel convolutional neural network (ConvNet) algorithm to map the internal colon surface to a 2D map (visibility map), which can be used to increase the awareness of clinicians about areas they might miss. This was achieved by leveraging a colonoscopy simulator to generate a dataset consisting of colonoscopy video frames and their corresponding colon centreline (CCL) points in 3D camera coordinates. A pair of video frames were used as input to a ConvNet, whereas the output was a point on the CCL and its direction vector. By knowing CCL for each frame and roughly modelling the colon as a cylinder, frames could be unrolled to build a visibility map. They validated their results using both simulated and real colonoscopy frames. Their results showed that using consecutive simulated frames to learn the CCL can be generalised to real colonoscopy video frames to generate a visibility map.

Factors predicting the colorectal adenoma detection rate in colonoscopic screening of a Chinese population: A prospective study

Colorectal cancer has high incidence and mortality. Early diagnosis could increase patient survival, but early diagnosis has been poor in China for the past decades. The purpose of this study is to assess the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) by colonoscopy in a Chinese population, and to determine the risk factors for adenoma.This prospective study at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital evaluated patients who underwent colonoscopy in September 2017 to February 2018. Basic information, exact insertion and withdrawal times, PDR, and ADR were assessed. Risk factors for colorectal adenoma in the adenoma-positive and adenoma-negative groups (based on pathology) were assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis.A total of 1058 procedures with 767 polyps were analyzed. The overall PDR and ADR were 36.96% (391/1058) and 24.67% (261/1058), respectively. Occurrence of adenoma was associated with age, gender, body mass index (BMI), family history of colon cancer, personal history of adenoma, diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use. There was a significant association between withdrawal time and ADR (P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, age (OR = 1.041, 95%CI 1.028-1.055; P < .001), insertion time (OR = 0.999, 95%CI 0.998-1.000; P = .009), withdrawal time (OR = 1.009, 95%CI 1.007-1.011; P < .001), personal history of adenoma (OR = 2.572, 95%CI 1.115-5.932; P = .027), and diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.221, 95%CI 1.084-4.549; P = .029) were risk factors for colorectal adenoma detection.In a Chinese population, ADR increases with age, withdrawal time, a personal history of adenoma, and diabetes. Age, insertion and withdrawal times, and a personal history of adenoma may independently predict colorectal adenoma detection.

Adenoma detection rates in colonoscopies for positive fecal immunochemical tests versus direct screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent guidelines propose higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopies performed for positive results for fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), but this is based on low-quality evidence. We aimed to compare ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in direct screening colonoscopy (DSC) versus FIT-positive colonoscopy (FITC) in a multicenter Asia-Pacific cohort to justify differential targets.

METHODS

Asymptomatic average-risk patients ≥50 years of age who underwent screening colonoscopy directly or as follow-up for positive OC-Sensor FIT results were identified from 8 sites across the Asia-Pacific region. Overall, sex-specific ADR, overall AADR, and overall APC were compared between the 2 screening methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounding by differences in patient characteristics. Linear regression was used to correlate ADR with APC and to propose APC benchmarks.

RESULTS

A total of 2901 (mean age, 60.1 years; 57% men) individuals had DSC, and 2485 (mean age, 62.8 years; 57% men) underwent FITC. Overall ADR (53.6% vs 37.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.93; P < .001), male-specific ADR (61.6% vs 44.6%; OR, 2; P < .001), female-specific ADR (43.2% vs 28.2%; OR, 1.94; P < .001) and overall AADR (29.9% vs 4.9%; OR, 8.2; P < .001) in FITC were significantly higher than the corresponding values for DSC. Differences remained significant after adjustment for patient characteristics. ADR was strongly and positively correlated to APC, with an ADR of 45% and 35% correlating to an APC of ∼1 and ∼0.65.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this international multicenter cohort study provide early evidence that newly proposed higher ADR targets are justified as quality indicators for FITC.

Video-Based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate With Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded >28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75.

RESULTS

We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P<.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P<.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills.

CONCLUSION

In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components-specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique.

ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru

Background and study aims  High-quality colonoscopy is fundamental for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key colonoscopy quality measure. The aim of this study was to establish the screening colonoscopy ADR of a tertiary referral center in Peru, identify the relationship between the ADR and patient age, sex and the colonoscopist, and determine the endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of the lesions found. Patients and methods  A retrospective observational longitudinal study was undertaken between January 2016 and June 2017. Results  Eight colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 620 patients scoring ≥ 6 points on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); cecal intubation was complete in 595 patients (cecal intubation rate [CIR] 95.9 %). The overall ADR was 29.7 % (females 25.4 %, males 33.1 %, P  = 0.040, 95 %Cl). The ADR colonoscopist range was 25.0 % to 34.4 %. The highest ADR (41.2 %, P  = 0.013, 95 %Cl) was for patients aged 65 to 75 years. Adenoma colon locations were: left 49 %, transverse 21.6 % and right 29.4 %. Adenoma dysplasia grades: low 98 %, high 2 %. Sixty-three percent of the lesions were 5 mm to 10 mm. Resections performed: 78.5 % cold biopsy forceps (CBF), 3.4 % cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and 18.1 % endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Conclusions  The ADR established was in line with the joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and related to patient age and gender but not to the colonoscopist. Colonoscopists should ensure rigorous application of the colonoscopy quality actions. ADR should be evaluated frequently.

Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools

The correlation between a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval cancers (ICs) has made ADR one of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy. Data from nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs showed that there is room for improvement in ADR in order to reduce ICs in Taiwan. Measures with and without adjunct tools have been shown to have the potential to increase ADR, with the latter being more convenient to apply without additional cost. Optimal withdrawal techniques coupled with sufficient withdrawal time, training endoscopists with emphasis on recognition of subtle characteristics of flat lesions, dynamic position changes during the withdrawal phase, removing small polyps found during insertion, and retroflexion in the right colon have all been associated with increased ADR. In particular, water exchange (WE), which is characterized using water in lieu of air and suction removal of infused water during insertion, appears to meet the needs of colonoscopy patients in Taiwan. Analyses of both primary and secondary outcome variables of recently published studies have consistently shown that WE yields higher ADR than traditional air insufflation, even in propofol-sedated patients. Colonoscopists participating in the nationwide CRC screening program in Taiwan should consider applying one or more of the above measures to improve ADR and hopefully reduce ICs.

Impact of differences in adenoma and proximal serrated polyp detection rate on the long-term effectiveness of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) vary among endoscopists. It is unclear how these variations influence colorectal cancer (CRC) screening effectiveness. We evaluated the effect of variation in these detection rates on the long-term impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) based screening.

METHODS

The Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) model was set up to simulate the Dutch national biennial FIT-based CRC screening program between 2014 and 2044. Adherence to FIT and colonoscopy was 73 and 92%. Besides a 'no screening scenario', several screening scenarios varying in ADR and PSPDR were evaluated. Using the available literature on colonoscopy miss rates led to a base-case ADR of 59% and PSPDR of 11%, which were varied with intervals of 3 and 2%.

RESULTS

Compared to no screening, FIT-screening in the base-case scenario reduced long-term mortality with 51.8%. At a fixed PSPDR of 11%, an increase in ADR from 44 to 62% would result in a 10.7% difference in mortality reduction. Using a fixed ADR of 59%, changing the PSPDR from 3 to 15% did not substantially influence long-term mortality (51.0 to 52.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in ADR gradually reduces CRC burden in a FIT-based screening program, whereas an increase in PSPDR only minimally influences long-term outcomes at a population-level. The limited effect of the PSPDR can be explained by the limited sensitivity of FIT for serrated polyps (SPs). Other triage modalities aiming to detect relevant SPs should be explored.

Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy according to Indication

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated quality measure for screening colonoscopy, but there are little data for other indications. The distribution of adenomas is not well described for these indications.

Aim

To describe ADR and the adenoma distribution in the proximal and distal colon based on colonoscopy indication.

Methods

Outpatient colonoscopies are subdivided by indication. PDR and ADR for the entire colon and for proximal and distal colon. Data were compared using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering amongst endoscopists while controlling for patient age and gender.

Results

3436 colonoscopies were reviewed (51.2%: men (n = 1759)). Indications are screening 49.2%, surveillance 29.3%, change in bowel habit 8.4%, bleeding 5.8%, colitides 3.0%, pain 2.8%, and miscellaneous 1.5%. Overall ADR was 37% proximal ADR 28%, and distal ADR 17%. PDR and ADR were significantly higher in surveillance than in screening (PDR: 69% versus 51%; ADR: 50% versus 33%; p = 0.0001). Adenomas were more often detected in the proximal than in the distal colon, for all indications.

Conclusions

Prevalence of polyps and adenomas differs based on colonoscopy indication. Adenoma detection is highest in surveillance and more commonly detected in the proximal colon. For quality assurance, distinct ADR and PDR targets may need to be established for different colonoscopy indications.

Factors Associated with Surveillance Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited.

AIMS

Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors.

METHODS

A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.88), BMI per kg/m² (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.27) and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15-1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10-0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR.

CONCLUSIONS

For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists' screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

Utility of the multitarget stool DNA test for detection of colorectal neoplasia

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an ideal target for screening because it and its precursor lesions are prevalent and can be detected at curable stages among asymptomatic persons. Different screening strategies have been shown to reduce CRC incidence and mortality; therefore, CRC screening is widely recommended. However, despite these demonstrated benefits, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened and efforts are underway in multiple countries to improve screening participation. The multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA) is a new noninvasive option for CRC screening that is a now recommended as a primary CRC screening strategy in the updated guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. MT-sDNA has high accuracy for detection of both CRC and polyps at the greatest risk of progression, and has potential to improve screening uptake and effectiveness. This review provides a summary of MT-sDNA performance for detection of colorectal neoplasia and a perspective on the value it adds to our screening tool kit.

Importance of endoscopist quality metrics for findings at surveillance colonoscopy: The detection-surveillance paradox

Background

Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies based exclusively on findings at baseline colonoscopy. This recommendation leads to the paradox that the higher the baseline colonoscopy quality, the more surveillance colonoscopies will be indicated according to current guidelines.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on follow-up findings of different quality metrics of the endoscopist performing the baseline colonoscopy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included individuals with advanced adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR) were determined for 44 endoscopists. Surveillance colonoscopies were checked after systematic tracking.

Results

A total of 574 individuals were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, of whom 270 received a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients whose baseline colonoscopy endoscopist had an ADR lower than the median of 33.8% had significantly higher rates of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (13.1% vs 4.0%; p = 0.001). On univariate analysis, high-risk advanced adenomas at baseline (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.97) and ADR (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99) showed a significant relationship with advanced neoplasia at surveillance. In a multivariate Cox model, the ADR of the endoscopist who performed the baseline colonoscopy was the only independent predictor of risk for developing advanced neoplasia at follow-up (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the risk of identifying advanced adenomas at follow-up is closely related to the quality metrics of the endoscopist who performs the baseline colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer

GOALS

The aim of this paper was to discuss association between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval colorectal cancer risk.

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate is being used as a benchmark quality measure for colonoscopy. There are three studies showing inverse association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer risk. One recent study reports significant impact of increased ADR on decreasing interval colorectal cancer risk.

STUDY

We discussed evidence for using ADR as a quality measures in colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. We revised three studies (Kaminski et al., N Engl J Med 2010; Corley et al., N Engl J Med 2014 and Rogal et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013) analyzing association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer. We collated strengths and weaknesses of these studies with the perspective of clinical impact of their results.

RESULTS

Kaminski et al. and Corley et al. reported inverse association between ADR at colonoscopy and interval colorectal cancer. Kaminski et al. showed that patients examined by endoscopists with ADR of less than 20% had over 10 times greater risk of interval colorectal cancer during the follow-up time than those examined by endoscopists with ADR ≥20%. Additionally, Corley et al. showed that ADR ≥28% resulted in a significantly lower risk of colorectal cancer death than ADR of less than 19%. In parallel, Rogal et al. reported similar association for flexible sigmoidoscopy, with 2.4 higher odds of interval colorectal cancer diagnosis during follow-up time in patients examined by endoscopists with distal ADR <7.2% than those with distal ADR ≥7.2%. Apart from inevitable clinical importance of the studies, they are not without disadvantages. In Kaminski et al. study cohort and study endpoint are well defined, but there is lack of statistical power to provide more robust results. In Rogal et al. study cohort is well defined, but approximation of the study endpoint was used. Finally, Corley et al. study has both poorly defined study cohort and study endpoint, but has the highest statistical power of all three to detect the differences for both interval colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer death.

CONCLUSION

Both, inverse relationship between ADR and ADR improvement and colorectal cancer risk and death reaffirm ADR as a crucial quality control parameter.

Assessing colonoscopic inspection skill using a virtual withdrawal simulation: a preliminary validation of performance metrics

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of colonoscopy for diagnosing and preventing colon cancer is largely dependent on the ability of endoscopists to fully inspect the colonic mucosa, which they achieve primarily through skilled manipulation of the colonoscope during withdrawal. Performance assessment during live procedures is problematic. However, a virtual withdrawal simulation can help identify and parameterise actions linked to successful inspection, and offer standardised assessments for trainees.

METHODS

Eleven experienced endoscopists and 18 endoscopy novices (medical students) completed a mucosal inspection task during three simulated colonoscopic withdrawals. The two groups were compared on 10 performance metrics to preliminarily assess the validity of these measures to describe inspection quality. Four metrics were related to aspects of polyp detection: percentage of polyp markers found; number of polyp markers found per minute; percentage of the mucosal surface illuminated by the colonoscope (≥0.5 s); and percentage of polyp markers illuminated (≥2.5 s) but not identified. A further six metrics described the movement of the colonoscope: withdrawal time; linear distance travelled by the colonoscope tip; total distance travelled by the colonoscope tip; and distance travelled by the colonoscope tip due to movement of the up/down angulation control, movement of the left/right angulation control, and axial shaft rotation.

RESULTS

Statistically significant experienced-novice differences were found for 8 of the 10 performance metrics (p's < .005). Compared with novices, experienced endoscopists inspected more of the mucosa and detected more polyp markers, at a faster rate. Despite completing the withdrawals more quickly than the novices, the experienced endoscopists also moved the colonoscope more in terms of linear distance travelled and overall tip movement, with greater use of both the up/down angulation control and axial shaft rotation. However, the groups did not differ in the number of polyp markers visible on the monitor but not identified, or movement of the left/right angulation control. All metrics that yielded significant group differences had adequate to excellent internal consistency reliability (α = .79 to .90).

CONCLUSIONS

These systematic differences confirm the potential of the simulated withdrawal task for evaluating inspection skills and strategies. It may be useful for training, and assessment of trainee competence.

A survey-based analysis on endoscopic quality indicators compliance among Spanish endoscopists

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopy plays a key role for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders. Therefore, quality indicators have been widely proposed in order to optimize endoscopic practice. The aims of this study, promoted by the Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases (SEPD), were to assess the knowledge and compliance to endoscopy quality indicators among Spanish gastroenterologists.

METHODS

A 31-questionnaire survey was created based on the endoscopy quality indicators proposed by international guidelines. The survey was distributed among Spanish gastroenterologists who are members of the society. Using only fully completed surveys, a descriptive analysis was performed. Those factors related with a suboptimal quality performance were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,543 surveys were sent and 281 (18.2%) were received completed. Based on the answers obtained, the management of 14 (70%) out of 20 assessed quality indicators was poor: 5 (83.3%) out of 6 pre-procedure items, 7 (58.3%) out of 12 intra-procedure items and 2 (100%) out of 2 post-procedure items.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of Spanish endoscopists do not comply with main endoscopic quality indicators. Factors such as "young" age, public setting, no colorectal cancer screening program and low volume of procedures/week are related to a poorer management of the assessed quality indicators and should be the target for future formative activities.

Colorectal cancer screening: Opportunities to improve uptake, outcomes, and disparities

Colorectal cancer screening has become a standard of care in industrialized nations for those 50 to 75 years of age, along with selected high-risk populations. While colorectal cancer screening has been shown to reduce both the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, it is a complex multi-disciplinary process with a number of important steps that require optimization before tangible improvements in outcomes are possible. For both opportunistic and programmatic colorectal cancer screening, poor participant uptake remains an ongoing concern. Furthermore, current screening modalities (such as the guaiac based fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy) may be used or performed suboptimally, which can lead to missed neoplastic lesions and unnecessary endoscopic evaluations. The latter poses the risk of adverse events, such as perforation and post-polypectomy bleeding, as well as financial impacts to the healthcare system. Moreover, ongoing disparities in colorectal cancer screening persist among marginalized populations, including specific ethnic minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Indigenous groups), immigrants, and those who are economically disenfranchised. Given this context, we aimed to review the current literature on these important areas pertaining to colorectal cancer screening, particularly focusing on the guaiac based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Interendoscopist variability in proximal colon polyp detection is twice higher for serrated polyps than adenomas

AIM

To assess the interendoscopist variability in the detection of colorectal polyps according to their location and histological type.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program; 2979 complete colonoscopies from 18 endoscopists were included. Variability in performance between endoscopists for detection of at least one adenoma (A), one proximal adenoma (PA), one distal adenoma (DA), and one proximal serrated polyp (PSP) was assessed by using multilevel logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The observed detection rates among the 18 endoscopists ranged from 24.6% to 47.6% (mean = 35.7%) for A, from 19.1% to 39.0% (mean = 29.4%) for DA, from 6.0% to 22.9% (mean = 12.4%) for PA, and from 1.3% to 19.3% (mean = 6.9%) for PSP. After adjusting for patient-level variables (sex, age), the interendoscopist detection rates variability achieved a significant level for A, PA, and PSP but not for DA (P = 0.03, P = 0.02, P = 0.02 and P = 0.08, respectively). This heterogeneity, as measured by the variance partition coefficient, was approximately threefold higher for PA (6.6%) compared with A (2.1%), and twofold higher for PSP (12.3%) compared with PA.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate significant interendoscopist variability for proximal polyp particularly for serrated polyps, but not for distal adenoma detection. These findings contribute to explain the decreased effectiveness of complete colonoscopies at preventing proximal CRCs and the need to carefully assess the proximal colon during scope procedure.

Multi-Target Stool DNA Test: Is the Future Here?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality and is widely recommended. However, despite these demonstrated benefits, a large percentage of the population remains unscreened. The multi-target stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test is a new, non-invasive option for CRC screening that has a high accuracy rate in detection of colorectal neoplasia and offers great opportunity to enhance screening uptake. This review provides the current state of the art knowledge about the use of MT-sDNA in CRC screening.

Accrediting for screening-related colonoscopy services: What is required of the endoscopist and of the endoscopy service?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely implemented to reduce CRC incidence and related mortality. The impact of screening as well as the balance between screening burden and benefits strongly depends on the quality of colonoscopy. Besides quality, safety of the endoscopic procedure and patient satisfaction are important outcome parameters for a screening program. Therefore the requirements for both CRC screening endoscopy services and endoscopists focus on technical aspects, patient safety, and patient experience. Stringent quality assurance by means of routine monitoring of quality indicators for the performance of endoscopists and endoscopy units is recommended. This allows setting minimum standards, targeted interventions, and enhancement of the overall quality of population screening. This reviews deals with guidelines and quality standards for colorectal cancer screening, with focus on both endoscopist and endoscopy services.

Use of automated irrigation pumps improves quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of automated irrigation pumps (AIPs) in improving the quality of the bowel preparation and the yield of colonoscopy.

METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single medical center. Outpatient colonoscopies performed during a 4-mo time period when AIPs were not in use, were compared to colonoscopies performed during control period. The main outcomes measured were quality of bowel preparation, procedures aborted due to poor preparation, recommendations to repeat at short interval due to sub-optimal bowel preparation and adenoma detection rates.

RESULTS: One thousand and thirty-seven colonoscopies were included. A higher proportion of cases did not achieve a satisfactory bowel preparation when AIPs were not used (24.4% vs 10.3%, P < 0.01). The number of procedures aborted due to inadequate preparation was not significantly different, however a repeat procedure at a short interval was recommended in a higher proportion of cases when AIPs were not used (21.3% vs 6.9%, P < 0.01). Good or excellent preparation was 2.91 (95%CI: 2.04-4.15) times more likely when AIPs were used. Detection of polyps and adenomas was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION: AIP use during colonoscopy results in a higher proportion of colonic preparation rated as satisfactory, although polyp detection rate is not significantly affected. Recommendations for repeat colonoscopy at shorter interval significantly decrease with the use of AIPs. This study supports the use of the irrigation pumps in endoscopy units to improve the quality of colonoscopy.

The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR.

DESIGN

We applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR.

SETTING

A private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

PATIENTS

Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking.

RESULTS

There were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from -5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable.

LIMITATIONS

ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed.

Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost

BACKGROUND

The frequency of nonneoplastic polypectomy (NNP) and its impact on the polyp detection rate (PDR) is unknown. The correlation between NNP and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and its impact on the cost of colonoscopy has not been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of NNP in screening colonoscopy, the impact of NNP on the PDR, and the correlation of NNP with ADR. The increased cost of NNP during screening colonoscopy also was calculated.

DESIGN

We reviewed all screening colonoscopies. PDR and ADR were calculated. We then calculated a nonneoplastic polyp detection rate (patients with ≥1 nonneoplastic polyp).

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2010 to 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADR, PDR, NNP rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1797 colonoscopies were reviewed. Mean (±standard deviation) PDR was 47.7%±12.0%, and mean ADR was 27.3%±6.9%. The overall NNP rate was 10.4%±7.1%, with a range of 2.4% to 28.4%. Among all polypectomies (n=2061), 276 were for nonneoplastic polyps (13.4%). Endoscopists with a higher rate of nonneoplastic polyp detection were more likely to detect an adenoma (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2). With one outlier excluded, there was a strong correlation between ADR and NNP (r=0.825; P<.001). The increased cost of removal of nonneoplastic polyps was $32,963.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong correlation between adenoma detection and nonneoplastic polyp detection. The etiology is unclear, but nonneoplastic polyp detection rate may inflate the PDR for some endoscopists. NNP also adds an increased cost. Increasing the awareness of endoscopic appearances through advanced imaging techniques of normal versus neoplastic tissue may be an area to improve cost containment in screening colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is considered the most important quality indicator for colonoscopy and varies widely among colonoscopists. It is unknown whether the ADR of gastroenterology consultants can already be predicted during their colonoscopy training.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ADR of fellows in gastroenterology and evaluate whether this predicts their ADR as gastroenterology consultants.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Academic and regional centers.

PATIENTS

Symptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The variance in ADR among 7 gastroenterology fellows during their training (between May 2004 and March 2012) and of the same fellows after they registered as consultants (between October 2011 and April 2014) was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to compare the highest detector (endoscopist with highest ADR) with the individual fellows and to evaluate whether an ADR of 20% or higher during the training was predictive of a high ADR as a consultant.

RESULTS

During training, ADRs ranged from 14% to 36% (P < .001). Compared with the highest detector, the OR for detecting an adenoma ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.40-1.03) to 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17-0.48). After registration, ADR ranged from 19.8% to 40.2% (P = .066). Compared with the highest detector during consultancy, the OR ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.34-1.21) to 0.26 (95% CI, 0.13-0.52). Only 2 fellows significantly improved their ADR after completing their training. An ADR lower than 20% during training was associated with a lower ADR as a consultant (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Variance in ADR is already present during the endoscopy training of gastroenterology fellows. Most fellows do not improve their ADR after completing their training. These findings suggest that the ADR can be predicted during colonoscopy training, and we suggest that feedback and benchmarking should be implemented early during training of fellows in an effort to improve ADR in future daily practice as a consultant.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Colonoscopy quality assessment

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone of colorectal cancer screening programs. There is significant variability in the quality of colonoscopy between endoscopists. Colonoscopy quality assessment tracks various metrics to improve the effectiveness of colonoscopy, aiming at reducing the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the prime metric, because it is associated with the risk of interval cancer. Implementing processes to measure and improve the adenoma detection rate is essential to improve the quality of colonoscopy.

The big picture: does colonoscopy work?

Colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening has transformed the practice of gastrointestinal medicine in the United States. However, although the dominant screening strategy, its use is not supported by randomized controlled trials. Observational data do support a protective effect of colonoscopy and polypectomy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but the level of protection in the proximal colon is variable and operator-dependent. Colonoscopy by high-level detectors remains highly effective, and ongoing quality improvement initiatives should consider regulatory factors that motivate changes in physician behavior.

Effects of the no interruption zone on distraction levels, withdrawal times, and adenoma detection rates of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The creation of no interruption zones (NIZs) reduces medical errors by reducing distraction levels on hospital wards. To date, the effect of a NIZ during colonoscopy has not been evaluated.

AIMS

Assess the effects of a NIZ during colonoscopy, on distraction levels, withdrawal times, and adenoma detection rates (ADRs).

METHODS

This was a non-randomized prospective study of screening colonoscopies at a teaching hospital. The intervention, a NIZ, was created by limiting conversations to the care of the patient undergoing the procedure and posting a "do not disturb" sign during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy. Distraction levels, withdrawal times, and ADRs were analyzed at baseline and after the NIZ.

RESULTS

The implementation of the NIZ leads to a significant reduction of high-distraction-level environments (13.1 vs. 5.1 %; p < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in withdrawal time with NIZs; (10.6 vs. 9.9 min, p = 0.0038). There was no significant difference in ADRs (38 % baseline vs. 36 % NIZs, respectively; p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Creation of a NIZ was associated with a significant decrease in high-distraction environments and shorter withdrawal times with no significant change in ADRs. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether lower distraction levels in an endoscopy suite translate to improved quality measures.

Can I improve my adenoma detection rate?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as a key quality metric for colonoscopy. Despite limitations, its major strength is based on its proven correlation with interval colorectal cancer. This has prompted extensive efforts to identify factors and interventions that improve ADR. Potentially modifiable factors that may influence ADR can be patient related (eg, bowel preparation), endoscopist related (eg, withdrawal time, quality of mucosal inspection, additional observers), or procedure related (eg, water infusion, additional examination of right colon, change in position, antispasmodics, colonoscopic equipment, and accessories). Providing endoscopists with educational material and/or feedback also seems to improve ADR.

Identification of physicians with unusual performance in screening colonoscopy databases: a Bayesian approach

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important surrogate measure of performance quality for screening colonoscopies.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate how physicians with unusual performance concerning the adenoma detection rate may be identified in screening colonoscopy databases.

DESIGN

Bayesian random-effects modeling and Winsorization of potential outliers were applied to develop a robust model for the majority of providers. Divergence was assessed with adjustment for multiple testing. The steps in the analysis were visualized by using funnel plots. Additionally, minimum requirements for the number of colonoscopies with 1 or more detected adenomas were derived.

SETTING

Data from 422 physicians offering screening colonoscopy and participating in a quality assurance program in Bavaria, Germany, were used.

PATIENTS

A total of 69,738 asymptomatic individuals 55 to 79 years of age.

INTERVENTION

Screening colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Physician-specific ADRs.

RESULTS

The overall ADR in the sample was 26%. From an initial model, 62 physicians (15%) were identified as potential outliers. A model with normally distributed random effects was then chosen as the robust null model. Of the potential outliers, 10 (16%) were confirmed as physicians with unusual performance at a false discovery rate of 5%. For all of them, the observed ADR was lower than expected, and together they accounted for 1.4% of all included colonoscopies.

LIMITATIONS

Analysis of routine data.

CONCLUSION

The applied statistical approach appears suitable to identify unusual performance in screening colonoscopy databases. Its application may help to evaluate and improve the quality of colonoscopy in population-based colorectal cancer screening programs.

Multi-target stool DNA test: a new high bar for noninvasive screening

Stool DNA testing has evolved into what is now a highly accurate and well-validated test for the screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. An optimized and automated multi-target stool DNA test (MT-sDNA) has achieved the same high point-sensitivities as reported for colonoscopy and significantly higher sensitivity than by fecal immunochemical blood testing for detection of early-stage cancer and advanced precancer. Thus, MT-sDNA sets a new high criterion standard for the noninvasive screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. With clinical application, MT-sDNA has potential to meaningfully address current gaps in our approach to CRC screening through benefits of its high accuracy on screening effectiveness, user-friendly features on patient compliance, and easy mail-out distribution on test access. The US Food and Drug Administration and Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services have recently completed their parallel reviews of MT-sDNA, which has just become available for clinical use. This review summarizes the recent clinical validation data on MT-sDNA, addresses central clinical questions at this front end of implementation, and touches on innovative future applications of stool DNA testing.

Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the USA

Colonoscopy is the dominant colorectal cancer screening strategy in the USA. There are no randomized controlled trials completed of screening colonoscopy, but multiple lines of evidence establish that colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence in both the proximal and distal colon. Colonoscopy is highly operator dependent, but systematic efforts to measure and improve quality are impacting performance. Colonoscopy holds a substantial advantage over other strategies for detection of serrated lesions, and a recent case-control study suggests that once-only colonoscopy or colonoscopy at 20-year intervals, by a high-level detector, could ensure lifetime protection from colorectal cancer for many patients.

Colonoscopy: quality indicators

Effective endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the few preventable cancers, is dependent on the adequate detection and removal of potentially precancerous lesions. However, observed variation in colonoscopy performance in practice and outcomes has highlighted the need for consistent quality measures. Quality indicators or measures are tools that help to quantify health-care processes and can aid in providing high-quality health care. The primary colonoscopy quality indicator is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is defined as the proportion of an endoscopist's screening colonoscopies in which one or more adenomas have been detected. The risk of post-colonoscopy CRC is inversely correlated with an endoscopist's ADR. However, ADR is dependent on other quality measures, including cecal intubation rates, withdrawal times, and quality of bowel preparation. Achieving suggested benchmarks for these other quality measures will aid the endoscopist in achieving the recently updated ADR benchmark of 25% in their practice. In addition, beyond ensuring adequate ADRs, endoscopists should have high compliance rates with guideline-recommended and evidence-based screening and surveillance intervals. Compliance with quality measures will ensure effective and safe CRC prevention and better patient outcomes.

Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation

In a recent article in The New York Times, "The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill,"(1) colonoscopy was singled out for its cost. In their response, the leading gastroenterology professional societies highlighted colonoscopy's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Affirming colonoscopy's central role in CRC prevention, both as a frontline test and as the final common pathway for other CRC screening modalities, requires strategies to measure and improve colonoscopy quality, particularly by controlling operator-dependent factors. Although colonoscopy is a powerful CRC screening test,(2-6) several recent studies have highlighted decreased protection, mainly against right-sided CRC,(5,7-16) an observation that has been linked to performance quality.

Colon cancer screening with image-enhanced endoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer mortality worldwide, and this has led to an increased use of screening colonoscopy. This screening has resulted in long-term risk reduction in asymptomatic individuals. However, endoscopists may fail to detect advanced adenomas or colon cancer during screening. The reasons that adenomas or cancers are missed are thought to be associated with the location of the lesions or the skills of the endoscopist. To address the limitations of white light endoscopy (WLE) for adenoma detection, advanced endoscopic images have recently been used. Image-enhanced endoscopies (IEEs), including the use of topical dyes, optical filtering, and ultramagnification, allow for gastrointestinal lesion analysis. Many studies have compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) obtained by using WLE and IEE, but with different results. IEE can be used to help the endoscopist to improve their ADR in screening colonoscopy. This review examines the possible roles of image-enhanced colonoscopy in CRC screening.