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

Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator set at a minimum of 25% in unselected populations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Nevertheless, a lack of pooled observational data resembling real-world practice limits support for this threshold. We aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled rates for conventional adenoma detection, polyp detection (PDR), cecal intubation, bowel preparation, and complications in population-based studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until May 2023 for populational-based studies reporting overall ADR in unselected individuals. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

31 studies were included, comprising 3 644 561 subjects. A high quality of procedures was noticeable, with a high cecal intubation rate and low complication rate. The overall pooled ADR, PDR, and rate of cancer detection were 26.5% (95%CI 23.3% to 29.7%), 38.3% (95%CI 32.5% to 44.1%), and 2.7% (95%CI 1.5% to 3.9%), respectively. ADR varied according to indication: screening 33.3% (95%CI 24.5% to 42.2%), surveillance 42.9% (95%CI 36.9% to 49.0%), and diagnostic 24.7% (95%CI 19.5% to 29.9%), with subgroup analysis revealing rates of 34.4% (95%CI 22.0% to 40.5%) for post-fecal occult blood test and 26.6% (95%CI 22.6% to 30.5%) for primary colonoscopy screening. Diminutive conventional adenomas yielded a pooled rate of 59.9% (95%CI 43.4% to 76.3%). The pooled rate for overall serrated lesion detection was 12.4% (95%CI 8.8% to 16.0%). Male sex and higher age were significantly associated with an ADR above the benchmark.

CONCLUSION

This first meta-analysis relying on real-world observational studies supports the ESGE benchmark for ADR, while suggesting that different benchmarks might be used according to indication, sex, and age.

Insights Into Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Multidatabase Cohort Study of Over 1.5 Million Taiwanese

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant public health concern. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening on CRC incidence and mortality, leveraging the scale of over 1.5 million randomly selected Taiwanese and more than 11.7 million person-years of follow-up.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study merges data from 3 robust Taiwanese health databases: the CRC screening program, cancer registration, and death registration databases. Incidence and mortality rates of CRC were calculated based on age, sex, urbanization, and past screening status. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between screening statuses and CRC incidence or mortality, adjusting for age, sex, and urbanization levels. Statistical analysis of the data was conducted in 2021-2022.

RESULTS

FIT screening was associated with a 33% reduction in CRC incidence and a 47% reduction in mortality. The study identified a dose-response relationship between the fecal hemoglobin concentration (f-HbC) levels and CRC risk. Participants with consistent FIT-negative results had significantly reduced CRC incidence and mortality risks, while those with one or more positive FIT results faced increased risks. Notably, compliance with follow-up examinations after a positive FIT significantly lowered mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study validates the efficacy of FIT screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. It offers a nuanced understanding of how various screening statuses impact CRC risks, thus providing valuable insights for public health strategies aimed at CRC prevention.

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 μg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

Multitarget Stool RNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Importance

Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer screening must include sensitive detection of colorectal cancer and precancerous lesions. These tests must be validated for the intended-use population, which includes average-risk individuals 45 years or older.

Objective

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a noninvasive, multitarget stool RNA (mt-sRNA) test (ColoSense) test compared with results from a colonoscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This phase 3 clinical trial (CRC-PREVENT) was a blinded, prospective, cross-sectional study to support a premarket approval application for a class III medical device. A total of 8920 participants were identified online using social media platforms and enrolled from June 2021 to June 2022 using a decentralized nurse call center. All participants completed the mt-sRNA test, which incorporated a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT), concentration of 8 RNA transcripts, and participant-reported smoking status. Stool samples were collected prior to participants completing a colonoscopy at their local endoscopy center. The mt-sRNA test results (positive or negative) were compared with index lesions observed on colonoscopy. Over the course of 12 months, individuals 45 years and older were enrolled in the clinical trial using the decentralized recruitment strategy. Participants were enrolled from 49 US states and obtained colonoscopies at more than 3800 different endoscopy centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes included the sensitivity of the mt-sRNA test for detecting colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas and the specificity for no lesions on colonoscopy.

Results

The mean (range) age of participants was 55 (45-90) years, with 4% self-identified as Asian, 11% as Black, and 7% as Hispanic. Of the 8920 eligible participants, 36 (0.40%) had colorectal cancer and 606 (6.8%) had advanced adenomas. The mt-sRNA test sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer was 94%, sensitivity for detecting advanced adenomas was 46%, and specificity for no lesions on colonoscopy was 88%. The mt-sRNA test showed significant improvement in sensitivity for colorectal cancer (94% vs 78%; McNemar P = .01) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%; McNemar P < .001) compared with results of the FIT.

Conclusions and Relevance

In individuals 45 years and older, the mt-sRNA test showed high sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma) with significant improvement in sensitivity relative to the FIT. Specificity for no lesions on colonoscopy was comparable to existing molecular diagnostic tests.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04739722.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Neoplasia Diagnosis After Multi-target Stool DNA Is Enhanced Among Lowest Baseline Detectors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variation in colorectal neoplasia detection limits the effectiveness of screening colonoscopy. By evaluating neoplasia detection rates of individual colonoscopists, we aimed to quantify the effects of pre-procedural knowledge of a positive (+) multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) on colonoscopy quality metrics.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified physicians who performed a high volume of + mt-sDNA colonoscopies; colorectal neoplasia at post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy was recorded. These colonoscopists were stratified into quartiles based on baseline adenoma detection rates. Baseline colonoscopy adenoma detection rates and sessile serrated lesion detection rates were compared to post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy neoplasia diagnosis rates among each quartile. Withdrawal times were measured from negative exams.

RESULTS

During the study period (2014-17) the highest quartile of physicians by volume of post-mt-sDNA colonoscopies were evaluated. Among thirty-five gastroenterologists, their median screening colonoscopy adenoma detection rate was 32% (IQR, 28-39%) and serrated lesion detection rate was 13% (8-15%). After + mt-sDNA, adenoma diagnosis increased to 47% (36-56%) and serrated lesion diagnosis increased to 31% (17-42%) (both p < 0.0001). Median withdrawal time increased from 10 (7-13) to 12 (10-17) minutes (p < 0.0001) and was proportionate across quartiles. After + mt-sDNA, lower baseline detectors had disproportionately higher rates of adenoma diagnosis in female versus male patients (p = 0.048) and higher serrated neoplasia diagnosis rates among all patients (p = 0.0092).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of + mt-sDNA enriches neoplasia diagnosis compared to average risk screening exams. Adenomatous and serrated lesion diagnosis was magnified among those with lower adenoma detection rates. Awareness of the mt-sDNA result may increase physician attention during colonoscopy. Pre-procedure knowledge of a positive mt-sDNA test improves neoplasia diagnosis rates among colonoscopists with lower baseline adenoma detection rates, independent of withdrawal time.

Double-contrast barium enema is no longer justified as a backup examination for colonoscopy in the population screening program: Population study in an organized fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Currently, some countries still acknowledge double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) as a backup confirmatory examination when colonoscopy is not feasible or incomplete in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This study aims to compare the performance of colonoscopy and DCBE in terms of the risk of incident CRC after negative results in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based Taiwan Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

METHODS

Subjects who had positive FITs and received confirmatory exams, either colonoscopy or DCBE, without the findings of neoplastic lesions from 2004 to 2013 in the screening program comprised the study cohort. Both the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts were followed until the end of 2018 and linked to the Taiwan Cancer Registry to identify incident CRC cases. Multivariate analysis was conducted to compare the risk of incident CRC in both subcohorts after controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 102 761 colonoscopies and 5885 DCBEs were performed after positive FITs without neoplastic findings during the study period. By the end of 2018, 2113 CRCs (2.7 per 1000 person-years) and 368 CRCs (7.6 per 1000 person-years) occurred in the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts, respectively. After adjusting for major confounders, DCBE had a significantly higher risk of incident CRC than colonoscopy, with an adjusted HR of 2.81 (95% CI = 2.51-3.14).

CONCLUSIONS

In the FIT screening program, using DCBE as a backup examination was associated with a nearly threefold risk of incident CRC compared with colonoscopy, demonstrating that it is no longer justified as a backup examination for incomplete colonoscopy.

Linked-Color Imaging Detects More Colorectal Adenoma and Serrated Lesions: An International Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Effects of linked-color imaging (LCI) on colorectal lesion detection and colonoscopy quality remain controversial. This study compared the detection rates of adenoma and other precursor lesions using LCI vs white-light imaging (WLI) during screening, diagnostic, and surveillance colonoscopies.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed at 11 institutions in 4 Asian countries/regions. Patients with abdominal symptoms, a primary screening colonoscopy, positive fecal immunochemical test results, or undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the LCI or high-definition WLI group. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, advanced ADR, sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate, and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy. The recommended surveillance schedule distribution after trial colonoscopy was analyzed.

RESULTS

Between November 2020 and January 2022, there were 3050 participants (LCI, n = 1527; WLI, n = 1523) recruited. The LCI group ADR was significantly higher than the WLI group ADR using intention-to-treat (58.7% vs 46.7%; P < .01) and per-protocol analyses (59.6% vs 46.4%; P < .01). The LCI group polyp detection rates (68.6% vs 59.5%; P < .01), SSL detection rates (4.8% vs 2.8%; P < .01), and adenomas per colonoscopy (1.48 vs 1.02; P < .01) also were significantly higher. However, the advanced ADR was not significantly different (13.2% vs 11.0%; P = .06). Significantly more patients in the LCI group had shorter recommended surveillance schedules than the WLI group (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with WLI, LCI improved adenoma and other polyp detection rates, including SSLs, resulting in alteration of the recommended surveillance schedule after screening, diagnostic, and postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000042432 (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy improves polyp detection and characterization in colonoscopy. However, data from large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) in an asymptomatic population are lacking.

METHODS

This multicenter RCT aimed to compare AI-assisted colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection in an asymptomatic population. Asymptomatic subjects 45-75 years of age undergoing colorectal cancer screening by direct colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test were recruited in 6 referral centers in Hong Kong, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Xiamen, and Beijing. In the AI-assisted colonoscopy, an AI polyp detection system (Eagle-Eye) with real-time notification on the same monitor of the endoscopy system was used. The primary outcome was overall adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, ADR according to endoscopist's experience, and colonoscopy withdrawal time. This study received Institutional Review Board approval (CRE-2019.393).

RESULTS

From November 2019 to August 2021, 3059 subjects were randomized to AI-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1519) and conventional colonoscopy (n = 1540). Baseline characteristics and bowel preparation quality between the 2 groups were similar. The overall ADR (39.9% vs 32.4%; P < .001), advanced ADR (6.6% vs 4.9%; P = .041), ADR of expert (42.3% vs 32.8%; P < .001) and nonexpert endoscopists (37.5% vs 32.1%; P = .023), and adenomas per colonoscopy (0.59 ± 0.97 vs 0.45 ± 0.81; P < .001) were all significantly higher in the AI-assisted colonoscopy. The median withdrawal time (8.3 minutes vs 7.8 minutes; P = .004) was slightly longer in the AI-assisted colonoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter RCT in asymptomatic patients, AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR, advanced ADR, and ADR of both expert and nonexpert attending endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04422548).

Second-generation distal attachment cuff for adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized studies have demonstrated that a distal attachment cap with rubber side arms, the Endocuff Vision (ECV; Olympus America, Center Valley, Pa, USA), increased colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR) in various mixed patient collectives. This is the first study to evaluate its use in a primary colonoscopic screening program.

METHODS

Patients over age 55 years undergoing screening colonoscopy in 9 German private offices in Berlin and Hamburg were randomized to either the study group using ECV or the control group using high-definition colonoscopies (standard of care). The main outcome parameter was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were detection rates of all adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs), of adenoma subgroups, and of hyperplastic polyps.

RESULTS

Of 1416 patients (mean age, 61.1 years; 51.8% women), with a median of 41 examinations per examiner (n = 23; interquartile range, 12-81), 700 were examined with ECV and 716 without. Adjusting for the effects of the colonoscopies, ADR was 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.6%-46.3%) in the ECV group versus 32.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-38.6%) in the control group, which resulted in an increase of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-12.2%; P = .004). The increase in ADR was mainly because of small polyps, with adjusted ADRs for adenomas <10 mm of 33.3% (95% CI, 26.5%-40.2%) for study patients versus 24.0% (95% CI, 18.2%-29.8%) for control patients (P < .001). APC was also significantly increased (.57 ECV vs .51 control subjects, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

A distal attachment cap with side arms significantly increased the ADR in patients undergoing primary colonoscopic screening. Because of the correlation of ADR and interval cancer, its use should be encouraged, especially in this setting. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03442738.).

Efficacy of a computer-aided detection system in a fecal immunochemical test-based organized colorectal cancer screening program: a randomized controlled trial (AIFIT study)

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) increases adenoma detection in primary screening colonoscopy. The potential benefit of CADe in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program is unknown. This study assessed whether use of CADe increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in a FIT-based CRC screening program.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized trial, FIT-positive individuals aged 50-74 years undergoing colonoscopy, were randomized (1:1) to receive high definition white-light (HDWL) colonoscopy, with or without a real-time deep-learning CADe by endoscopists with baseline ADR > 25 %. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced-ADR). Subgroup analysis according to baseline endoscopists' ADR (≤ 40 %, 41 %-45 %, ≥ 46 %) was also performed.

RESULTS

800 individuals (median age 61.0 years [interquartile range 55-67]; 409 men) were included: 405 underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy and 395 underwent HDWL colonoscopy alone. ADR and APC were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the HDWL arm: ADR 53.6 % (95 %CI 48.6 %-58.5 %) vs. 45.3 % (95 %CI 40.3 %-50.45 %; RR 1.18; 95 %CI 1.03-1.36); APC 1.13 (SD 1.54) vs. 0.90 (SD 1.32; P  = 0.03). No significant difference in advanced-ADR was found (18.5 % [95 %CI 14.8 %-22.6 %] vs. 15.9 % [95 %CI 12.5 %-19.9 %], respectively). An increase in ADR was observed in all endoscopist groups regardless of baseline ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating CADe significantly increased ADR and APC in the framework of a FIT-based CRC screening program. The impact of CADe appeared to be consistent regardless of endoscopist baseline ADR.

Detection rates of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopies and their associated factors in the SCREESCO study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy quality, including lesion detectability, is variable, and factors influencing lesion detection are not fully understood. This study investigated lesion detection rates during colonoscopies and the associated factors in the SCREEning of Swedish COlons (SCREESCO) study.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis of data from SCREESCO, a large-scale randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening in the Swedish population aged 60 years, we assessed data of first-time colonoscopies performed in both colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) arms.

RESULTS

This study included 16 552 individuals. The adenoma detection rate was 23.9% and 37.8% in colonoscopy and FIT arms, respectively. Regarding colonoscopy procedures, a withdrawal time ≥ 6 min was associated with higher detection rates of advanced adenomas (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.474, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.295-4.723), adenomas (2.181, 1.515-3.140), and proximal serrated lesions (pSLs) (1.713, 1.007-2.915). Antispasmodic use was associated with higher detection rates of these lesions and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) (AOR, 95% CI: 1.523, 1.295-1.791; 1.361, 1.217-1.522; 1.450, 1.247-1.687; and 1.810, 1.512-2.167, respectively). Insertion time > 20 min was related to lower detection rates of adenomas, pSLs, and SSLs (AOR, 95% CI: 0.753, 0.639-0.887; 0.640, 0.495-0.828; and 0.704, 0.518-0.955, respectively). The relationship between a recent period and higher detection rates of pSLs and SSLs was also demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

Lesion detectability in SCREESCO was mostly acceptable with room for improvement. In addition to sufficient withdrawal time, antispasmodic use and acquiring skills enabling short insertion time may improve lesion detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02078804.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Cost-Effectiveness of Waiving Coinsurance for Follow-Up Colonoscopy after a Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Screening Test in a Medicare Population

Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer-screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer-related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3-7 (S3-S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%-4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3-S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641.

Adenoma detection rate is enough to assess endoscopist performance: a population-based observational study of FIT-positive colonoscopies

Background and study aims  Neoplasia-related indicators, such as adenoma detection rate (ADR), are a priority in the quality improvement process for colonoscopy. Our aim was to assess and compare different detection and characterization indicators in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive colonoscopies, to determine associated factors, and to propose benchmarks. Patients and methods  Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all colonoscopies performed between 2015 and 2019 after a positive quantitative FIT in the population-based colorectal cancer screening program conducted in Alsace, part of the French national program. Detection indicators included ADR, mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, and proximal serrated lesion (SL) detection rate. Characterization indicators included rate of non-neoplastic polyp (NNP) detection. Results  Overall, 13,067 FIT-positive colonoscopies were evaluated, performed by 80 community gastroenterologists. The overall ADR was 57.6 %, and a 10 µg/g increase in fecal hemoglobin concentration was significantly associated with higher ADR (odds ratio [95 % confidence interval] = 1.02 [1.02-1.03]). Endoscopists whose ADR was ≥ 55 % were high detectors for all neoplasia, including proximal SLs and number of adenomas. The rate of detection of NNPs was 39.5 % in highest detectors (ADR > 70 %), significantly higher than in lower detectors (21.4 %) ( P  < 0.001). There was a strong correlation between detection and characterization indicators, e. g. between rates of detection of proximal SLs and NNPs (Pearson = 0.73; P  < 0.01). Conclusions  A single indicator, ADR, is enough to assess endoscopist performance for both detection and characterization in routine practice provided the minimum target standard is raised and a maximum standard is added: 55 % and 70 % for FIT-positive colonoscopies, respectively.

Pooled rates of adenoma detection by colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk individuals with positive fecal immunochemical test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopy in individuals positive for a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are ≥45% in men and ≥35% in women. These are based on weak, low-quality evidence. We performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the pooled ADR in FIT-positive colonoscopy.

METHODS

Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in October 2021 for studies reporting on ADR of colonoscopy in a FIT-positive population. Meta-analysis was performed by standard methodology using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² and 95% prediction interval statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four high-quality studies that included more than 6 million asymptomatic average-risk individuals were analyzed; 2,655,345 individuals completed a screening FIT test. The pooled FIT screening rate was 69.8% (95% CI, 62.8-76.1), the pooled FIT positivity rate was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3-6.9), and the colonoscopy completion rate was 85% (95% CI, 82.8-86.9). The pooled ADR was 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6), pooled advanced ADR was 25.3% (95% CI, 22-29), and the pooled colorectal cancer detection rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 4.4-5.9). The pooled ADR in men was 58.3% (95% CI, 52.8-63.6) and in women was 41.9% (95% CI, 36.4-47.6). The pooled ADR with qualitative FIT assessment was 67.7% (95% CI, 50.7-81), with 1-stool sample FIT was 52.8% (95% CI, 48.8-56.8), and at a cutoff threshold of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL was 52.1% (95% CI, 47-57.1). Based on time-period cumulative analysis, the ADR improved over time from 30.5% (95% CI, 24.6-37.2) to 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports the current ADR benchmarks for colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals. Excellent pooled ADR parameters were demonstrated with qualitative assessment of 1 stool sample at a test cutoff value of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL, and ADR per endoscopist improved over time.

Upper endoscopy photodocumentation quality evaluation with novel deep learning system

OBJECTIVES

Visualization and photodocumentation during endoscopy procedures are suggested to be one indicator for endoscopy performance quality. However, this indicator is difficult to measure and audit manually in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging technology that may solve this problem.

METHODS

A deep learning model with an accuracy of 96.64% was developed from 15,305 images for upper endoscopy anatomy classification in the unit. Endoscopy images for asymptomatic patients receiving screening endoscopy were evaluated with this model to assess the completeness of photodocumentation rate.

RESULTS

A total of 15,723 images from 472 upper endoscopies performed by 12 endoscopists were enrolled. The complete photodocumentation rate from the pharynx to the duodenum was 53.8% and from the esophagus to the duodenum was 78.0% in this study. Endoscopists with a higher adenoma detection rate had a higher complete examination rate from the pharynx to duodenum (60.0% vs. 38.7%, P < 0.0001) and from esophagus to duodenum (83.0% vs. 65.7%, P < 0.0001) compared with endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rate. The pharynx, gastric angle, gastric retroflex view, gastric antrum, and the first portion of duodenum are likely to be missed by endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the use of a deep learning model to audit endoscopy photodocumentation quality in our unit. Endoscopists with better performance in colonoscopy had a better performance for this quality indicator. The use of such an AI system may help the endoscopy unit audit endoscopy performance.

Polypectomy for Diminutive and Small Colorectal Polyps

Diminutive and small colorectal polyps are common findings during colonoscopies, and rarely contain dysplastic elements and progress to colorectal cancer. With improving technology and the advent of artificial intelligence, detection rates of small or diminutive polyps and adenomas are rising, resulting in increasing costs associated with colonoscopy. Incomplete resection rates are an outcome of interest because it correlates with interval colorectal cancer. More effort is warranted to standardize training programs and sensitize endoscopists to the importance of personal performance as a quality metric of colonoscopy. This article reviews indications, methods, and recent developments in polypectomy for small and diminutive polyps.

Risk of colonoscopy-related complications in a fecal immunochemical test-based population colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

The likelihood of advanced or synchronous neoplasms is significantly higher in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive individuals than in the general population. The magnitude of the colonoscopy-related complication rate in FIT-positive individuals remains unknown. This study aimed to elucidate the colonoscopy-related complication rate after a positive FIT result and compare it with the rate when colonoscopy was performed for other purposes.

METHODS

Information regarding colonoscopy-related severe complications after a positive FIT result (FIT-colonoscopy) and ordinary colonoscopy during 2010-2014 was collected from the Taiwanese Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Database and National Health Insurance Research Database. Severe complications included significant bleeding, perforation, and cardiopulmonary events ≤ 14 days after colonoscopy. The number of events per 1000 procedures was used to quantify complication rates. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the association of various factors with severe complications associated with FIT-colonoscopy compared with ordinary colonoscopy.

RESULTS

319 114 FIT-colonoscopies (214 955 patients) were identified, 51 242 (16.1 %) of which included biopsy and 94 172 (29.5 %) included polypectomy. Overall, 2125 significant bleedings (6.7 ‰) and 277 perforations (0.9 ‰) occurred ≤ 14 days after FIT-colonoscopy. Polypectomy, antiplatelet use, and anticoagulant use were associated with higher risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.41, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.05-4.81); aOR 1.35, 95 %CI 1.12-1.53; aOR 1.88, 95 %CI 0.61-5.84, respectively). Compared with ordinary colonoscopy, FIT-colonoscopy involved significantly higher risk of significant bleeding (aOR 3.10, 95 %CI 2.90-3.32).

CONCLUSIONS

FIT-colonoscopy was associated with a more than two-fold risk of significant bleeding, especially when polypectomy was performed.

Clinical practice standards for colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is considered as the most effective tool for preventing, screening, and diagnosing colorectal lesions. Effectiveness of colonoscopy was identified as a major priority, and it strictly depends on quality measures. Therefore, international guidelines were formulated on quality indicators for colonoscopy, aiming to reduce the rate of interval cancers related to missed lesions during colonoscopy. Quality indicators are divided into 3 time periods: preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure.  The main pre-procedural indicators are the assessment of the appropriateness of indication of colonoscopy and the prescription of adequate bowel preparation during a consultation prior to colonoscopy. Per-procedural criteria include all technical aspects of the procedure, which are "endoscopist-dependent" factors, particularly cecal intubation, detection of adenomas and withdrawal time. The main post-procedure indicators are the rate of complications, patient experience and optimal surveillance intervals following removal of colorectal polyps. The implementation of key performance measures in endoscopy practice is increasingly important as it can help improving our care of patients and optimize outcomes. In this review, the "Club d'endoscopie digestive" (CED) presented a summary of the main colonoscopy quality indicators, and suggested recommendations that took into account the particularities of our local conditions.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR.

RESULTS

The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r = 0.44; P = .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.

Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We have developed the computer-aided detection (CADe) system using an original deep learning algorithm based on a convolutional neural network for assisting endoscopists in detecting colorectal lesions during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to clarify whether adenoma miss rate (AMR) could be reduced with CADe assistance during screening and surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40 to 80 years who were referred for colorectal screening or surveillance at four sites in Japan were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the "standard colonoscopy (SC)-first group" or the "CADe-first group" to undergo a back-to-back tandem procedure. Tandem colonoscopies were performed on the same day for each participant by the same endoscopist in a preassigned order. All polyps detected in each pass were histopathologically diagnosed after biopsy or resection.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients were enrolled and 179 patients were assigned to the SC-first group or CADe-first group. The AMR of the CADe-first group was significantly lower than that of the SC-first group (13.8% vs. 36.7%, P < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for the polyp miss rate (14.2% vs. 40.6%, P < 0.0001) and sessile serrated lesion miss rate (13.0% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.03). The adenoma detection rate of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was 64.5%, which was significantly higher than that of standard colonoscopy (53.6%; P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Our study results first showed a reduction in the AMR when assisting with CADe based on deep learning in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Detection of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Neoplasia by Multi-target Stool DNA

INTRODUCTION

Significant variability between colonoscopy operators contributes to postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). We aimed to estimate postcolonoscopy colorectal neoplasia (CRN) detection by multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), which has not previously been studied for this purpose.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort of patients with +mt-sDNA and completed follow-up colonoscopy, positive predictive value (PPV) for endpoints of any CRN, advanced adenoma, right-sided neoplasia, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and CRC were stratified by the time since previous colonoscopy (0-9, 10, and ≥11 years). mt-sDNA PPV at ≤9 years from previous average-risk screening colonoscopy was used to estimate CRN missed at previous screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among the 850 studied patients with +mt-sDNA after a previous negative screening colonoscopy, any CRN was found in 535 (PPV 63%). Among 107 average-risk patients having +mt-sDNA ≤9 years after last negative colonoscopy, any CRN was found in 67 (PPV 63%), advanced neoplasia in 16 (PPV 15%), right-sided CRN in 48 (PPV 46%), and SSP in 20 (PPV 19%). These rates were similar to those in 47 additional average risk persons with previous incomplete colonoscopy and in an additional 68 persons at increased CRC risk. One CRC (stage I) was found in an average risk patient who was mt-sDNA positive 6 years after negative screening colonoscopy.

DISCUSSION

The high PPV of mt-sDNA 0-9 years after a negative screening colonoscopy suggests that lesions were likely missed on previous examination or may have arisen de novo. mt-sDNA as an interval test after negative screening colonoscopy warrants further study.

Impact of screening and follow-up colonoscopy adenoma sensitivity on colorectal cancer screening outcomes in the CRC-AIM microsimulation model

BACKGROUND

Real-world data for patients with positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening stool-tests demonstrate that adenoma detection rates are lower when endoscopists are blinded to the stool-test results. This suggests adenoma sensitivity may be lower for screening colonoscopy than for follow-up to a known positive stool-based test. Previous CRC microsimulation models assume identical sensitivities between screening and follow-up colonoscopies after positive stool-tests. The Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) was used to explore the impact on screening outcomes when assuming different adenoma sensitivity between screening and combined follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies.

METHODS

Modeled screening strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) from 50 to 75 years. Outcomes were reported per 1000 individuals without diagnosed CRC at age 40. Base-case adenoma sensitivity values were identical for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies. Ranges of adenoma sensitivity values for colonoscopy performance were developed using different slopes of odds ratio adjustments and were designated as small, medium, or large impact scenarios.

RESULTS

As the differences in adenoma sensitivity for screening versus follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies became greater, life-years gained (LYG) and reductions in CRC-related incidence and mortality versus no screening increased for mt-sDNA and FIT and decreased for screening colonoscopy. The LYG relative to screening colonoscopy reached >90% with FIT in the base-case scenario and with mt-sDNA in a "medium impact" scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming identical adenoma sensitivities for screening and follow-up/surveillance colonoscopies underestimate the potential benefits of stool-based screening strategies.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Higher risk of advanced histology in adenoma less than 10 mm in fecal immunochemical test screening: Implication for management

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Whether diminutive or small adenomas detected by fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are associated with a higher risk of advanced histology remains unknown. We investigated the prevalence of advanced histology in diminutive and small adenomas detected by FIT and compared with that detected by colonoscopy screening.

METHODS

We prospectively compared 1860 FIT-positive patients (FIT-positive cohort) and 6691 average-risk patients (screening colonoscopy cohort). Both groups underwent colonoscopies and were shown to have neoplastic lesions. The prevalence of advanced histology was determined, as was the associations with size and FIT positivity.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3920 neoplastic lesions from the FIT-positive cohort and 9789 neoplastic lesions from the screening colonoscopy cohort. Eighty (4.3%) diminutive lesions in FIT-positive cohort had advanced histology but without any invasive cancer. Twenty-one patients in the FIT-positive cohort and 49 in the screening colonoscopy cohort with diminutive adenomas displayed advanced histology (3.5% vs 1.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-5.06). Sixteen patients in the FIT-positive cohort (2.7%) with diminutive adenomas might have changed the surveillance interval if a resect-and-discard strategy was applied, with a higher likelihood compared with the screening colonoscopy cohort (aOR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.53-4.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal immunochemical test screening detected more diminutive and small adenomas with advanced histology compared with colonoscopy screening. Its impact on current management of diminutive polyp is limited.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Cecal intubation time between the use of one-channel and two-channel water exchange colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water exchange (WE) colonoscopy is the least painful insertion technique with high adenoma detection rate but requires a longer intubation time. In the published literature, some investigators used the instrument channel for both infusing and suctioning of water (one channel), while others use colonoscopes with an integrated water-jet channel specifically designed for infusing water (two channel). The aim of this study was to compare cecal intubation time between one-channel and two-channel WE.

METHODS

A total 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy from May 2017 to April 2019 at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan were randomized to either a two-channel group (n = 60) or a one-channel group (n = 60). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

The mean cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the two-channel group compared with the one-channel group (14.0 ± 4.0 vs 17.4 ± 6.7 min, P < 0.001). The two-channel group required less water infused during insertion (564.8 ± 232.4 vs 1213.3 ± 467.5 mL, P < 0.001) but achieved a significantly higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.4 ± 0.8 vs 7.5 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) than did the one-channel group. The adenoma detection rate was comparable in the two groups (50.0% vs 48.3%, P = 0.855).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with the one-channel WE, two-channel WE showed a shorter cecal intubation time, required less amount of water during insertion, and provided a better salvage cleansing effect. (NCT03279705).

Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the detection of colorectal cancer, but the right colon is more difficult to examine than the left colon. A second examination of the proximal colon has the potential to reduce rates of missed pathology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether proximal retroflexion improves the adenoma detection rate or other outcomes in the right colon compared with the forward view.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients from the colorectal cancer screening programme with a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomized to a second right colon examination using proximal retroflexion or forward view.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patients were included. A second examination of the right colon, with an average additional procedure time of 1.62 min, increased the adenoma detection rate by 11%, regardless of the method used (9% proximal retroflexion vs. 12% second forward view, p = 0.21). The adenoma miss rate was 19% (17% proximal retroflexion vs. 20% forward view, p = 0.28) The success rate of retroflexion was 83%, without secondary complications. In the 15.6% of patients in whom lesions were detected during the second pass, endoscopic follow-up was modified by reducing the time of the next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

A second examination of the right colon, either from retroflexion or second forward view, can increase adenoma detection rate and shorten surveillance intervals in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. This should be emphasized during colonoscopy training and integrated into diagnostic colonoscopy practice.

Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Most fulfillment and benchmarking information for colonoscopy quality indicators has been obtained from studies of primary screening colonoscopies. We analyzed differences in the fulfillment of colonoscopy quality indicators based on the indication for endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study of 14,867 patients who underwent endoscopy procedures for gastrointestinal symptoms (40.3%), a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (36.0%), postpolypectomy surveillance (15.3%), or primary screening (8.4%), from February 2016 through December 2017 at 14 centers in Spain. We evaluated rates of adequate colon cleansing, cecal intubation, adenoma detection, and colorectal cancer detection, among others. We used findings from primary screening colonoscopies as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Fewer than 90% of patients had adequate bowel preparation; 83.1% of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] compared with patients with primary screening colonoscopies, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78) and 85.3% of patients receiving postpolypectomy surveillance had adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91). The cecal intubation rate was also lower in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (93.1%) (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52). The adenoma detection rate was higher in patients with a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (46.4%) (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.71-2.35) and in patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance (48.2%) (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.67). The highest proportion of patients with colorectal cancer was in the gastrointestinal symptom group (5.1%) (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 2.30-11.93) and the lowest was in patients undergoing surveillance (0.8%) (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.32-2.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Fulfillment of colonoscopy performance measures varies substantially by indication. Policies addressing performance measures beyond colonoscopy screening procedures should be developed. Benchmarking recommendations could be adjusted according to colonoscopy indication.

Water Exchange (WE) and Quality Improvement-Enhanced Advanced Adenoma Detection: A Pooled Data Analysis of 6 Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Advanced adenomas (≥10 mm in diameter, >25% villous, or high-grade dysplasia), a marker of colorectal cancer risk, are used to stratify patients for closer surveillance. Modern accessories, endoscopes, and age-adjusted evaluation have variable impacts on the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). In 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing air insufflation (AI) with water exchange (WE), the right colon AADR was significantly increased by WE. Four network meta-analyses reported that WE significantly increased overall adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the impact on AADR was not addressed.

AIM

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that WE significantly increased AADR compared with AI.

METHOD

Six Clinicaltrial.gov-registered RCTs were reported by a group of WE investigators. Data including AADR (primary outcome) and overall ADR (secondary outcome) were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 5407 patients were randomized to AI (2699) and WE (2708). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased AADR (5.7% vs. 8.3%, P=0.001) and overall ADR (20.9% vs. 27.4%, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to published reports, which showed variable impacts on AADR, WE was consistent in increasing AADR in 6 reported RCTs. The pooled data confirm that the impact of WE in increasing AADR was significant. The significantly enhanced overall ADR indicated that WE provided a higher quality outcome than AI. The significant improvement in AADR confirmed WE to be clinically relevant and has finally arrived as a timely addition to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Detection Measures for Colonoscopy: Considerations On the Adenoma Detection Rate, Recommended Detection Thresholds, Withdrawal Times, and Potential Updates to Measures

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was first proposed by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer in 2002 and, subsequently, has been validated as a strong predictor of colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy. ADR is now widely considered the most important quality measure in colonoscopy. ADR is a surrogate for missed lesions and for cancer incidence after colonoscopy. ADR has weaknesses, and multiple other detection targets have been evaluated as alternatives. This review discusses the history of ADR, the strength and weaknesses of ADR, and proposed alternatives to ADR. Of the alternatives, adenomas per colonoscopy has the most advantages with limited disadvantages relative to ADR and has some potential to eventually replace ADR.

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation.

RESULTS

In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar.

CONCLUSION

On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.