Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate

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.

Application of artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy: Future prospects (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has become a severe global health concern, with the third‑high incidence and second‑high mortality rate of all cancers. The burden of CRC is expected to surge to 60% by 2030. Fortunately, effective early evidence‑based screening could significantly reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. Colonoscopy is the core screening method for CRC with high popularity and accuracy. Yet, the accuracy of colonoscopy in CRC screening is related to the experience and state of operating physicians. It is challenging to maintain the high CRC diagnostic rate of colonoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)‑assisted colonoscopy will compensate for the above shortcomings and improve the accuracy, efficiency, and quality of colonoscopy screening. The unique advantages of AI, such as the continuous advancement of high‑performance computing capabilities and innovative deep‑learning architectures, which hugely impact the control of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality expectancy, highlight its role in colonoscopy screening.

Detection rates of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancers among the opportunistic colonoscopy screening population: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine and compare the detection rate of adenomas, advanced adenomas (AAs) and CRCs, and the number needed to screen (NNS) of individuals in an average-risk Chinese population of different ages and genders.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed at the Institute of Health Management, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. Colonoscopy results were analyzed for 53,152 individuals finally enrolled from January 2013 to December 2019. The detection rate of adenomas, AAs, or CRCs was computed and the characteristics between men and women were compared using chi-squared test.

RESULTS

The average age was 48.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.5 years) for men and 50.0 years (SD, 9.0 years) for women, and the gender rate was 66.27% (35,226) vs . 33.73% (17,926). The detection rates of adenomas, AAs, serrated adenomas, and CRCs were 14.58% (7750), 3.09% (1641), 1.23% (653), and 0.59% (313), respectively. Men were statistically significantly associated with higher detection rates than women in adenomas (17.20% [6058/35,226], 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.74-17.53% vs . 9.44% [1692/17,926], 95% CI 8.94-9.79%, P  < 0.001), AAs (3.72% [1309], 95% CI 3.47-3.87% vs . 1.85% [332], 95% CI 1.61-2.00%, P  < 0.001), and serrated adenomas (1.56% [548], 95% CI 1.43-1.69% vs . 0.59% [105], 95% CI 0.47-0.70%, P  < 0.001). The detection rate of AAs in individuals aged 45 to 49 years was 3.17% (270/8510, 95% CI 2.80-3.55%) in men and 1.69% (69/4091, 95% CI 1.12-1.86%) in women, and their NNS was 31.55 (95% CI 28.17-35.71) in men and 67.11 (95% CI 53.76-89.29) in women. The NNS for AAs in men aged 45 to 49 years was close to that in women aged 65 to 69 years (29.07 [95% CI 21.05-46.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

The detection rates of adenomas, AAs, and serrated adenomas are high in the asymptomatic population undergoing a physical examination and are associated with gender and age. Our findings will provide important references for effective population-based CRC screening strategies in the future.

Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR.

METHODS

We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures.

RESULTS

Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Segmental metachronous adenoma rate as a metric for monitoring incomplete resection in a colonoscopy screening program

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polypectomy technique has been shown to vary among colonoscopists, and interval colorectal cancer may result from incomplete resection of an adenoma. Methods to monitor polypectomy quality and the size of polyps resected to monitor have not been well defined. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of metachronous adenoma attributable to incomplete resection in polyps 6 to 9 mm versus polyps 10 to 20 mm.

METHODS

The segmental metachronous adenoma rate attributable to incomplete resection (SMAR-IR) was calculated by subtracting the rate of metachronous neoplasia (MN) in segments without adenoma from segments with adenoma. The primary outcome of the study was the SMAR-IR in polyps 6 to 9 mm and 10 to 20 mm found on index colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 337 patients included in the analysis, 146 patients had a tubular adenoma (TA) 10 to 20 mm in size and 191 patients a TA 6 to 9 mm in size as the most advanced lesion. For cases in which an index 10- to 20-mm TA was resected, the SMAR in segments with adenoma was 21.0% and in segments without adenoma 9.6%, so the SMAR-IR was 11.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.5-18.3). For cases in which an index 6- to 9-mm TA was resected, the SMAR in segments with adenoma was 22.0% and in segments without adenoma 8.8%, so the SMAR-IR was 13.2% (95% confidence interval, 7.2-19.4). Among 6 colonoscopists, the SMAR-IR ranged between 7.0% and 15.5% for polyps 6 to 20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

MN rates in segments with a TA 10-20 mm and a TA 6-9 mm are higher than the MN rates in segments without index neoplasia. Incomplete resection of neoplasia appears to be a significant risk factor for MN in 6- to 9-mm lesions as well as larger ones.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Artificial intelligence for non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms

The miss rate of flat advanced colorectal neoplasia is still unacceptably high, especially in the Western setting, notwithstanding the widespread implementation of quality improvement programs and training. It is well known that flat morphology is associated with miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, and that this subset of lesions often shows a more aggressive biological behaviour. Artificial intelligence (AI) applied to the detection of colorectal neoplasia has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate, consistently across all lesion sizes and locations in the colon. However, there is still uncertainty whether AI can reduce the miss rate of flat advanced neoplasia, mainly because all published trials report a low number of flat colorectal lesions in their training sets, and this could reduce AI accuracy for this subset of lesions. In addition, flat lesions have different morphologies with variable prevalence and potentially different accuracy in their detection. For example, the subtle appearance and rarer frequency of a non-granular laterally spreading tumor (LST) could be much harder to identify than a granular mixed LST. In this review, we present a summary of the evidence on the role of AI in the identification of colorectal flat neoplasia, with a focus on data regarding presence of LSTs in the training/validation sets of the AI systems currently available on the market.

Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

One-fourth of colorectal neoplasia are missed at screening colonoscopy, representing the main cause of interval colorectal cancer. Deep learning systems with real-time computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) showed high accuracy in artificial settings, and preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported favorable outcomes in the clinical setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize available RCTs on the performance of CADe systems in colorectal neoplasia detection.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until March 2020 for RCTs reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) according to size, morphology, and location; advanced APC; polyp detection rate; polyps per colonoscopy; and sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and assessed heterogeneity and publication bias.

RESULTS

Overall, 5 randomized controlled trials (4354 patients) were included in the final analysis. Pooled ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (791/2163 [36.6%] vs 558/2191 [25.2%]; RR, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.62; P < .01; I² = 42%). APC was also higher in the CADe group compared with control (1249/2163 [.58] vs 779/2191 [.36]; RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.89; P < .01; I² = 33%). APC was higher for ≤5-mm (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.48-1.84), 6- to 9-mm (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.75), and ≥10-mm adenomas (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06) and for proximal (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.88), distal (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.50-1.88), flat (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.47-2.15), and polypoid morphology (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Regarding histology, CADe resulted in a higher sessile serrated lesion per colonoscopy (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02), whereas a nonsignificant trend for advanced ADR was found (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, .74-2.47; P = .33; I² = 69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded as moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

According to available evidence, the incorporation of artificial intelligence as aid for detection of colorectal neoplasia results in a significant increase in the detection of colorectal neoplasia, and such effect is independent from main adenoma characteristics.

Expert endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates frequently detect diminutive adenomas in proximal colon

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator in colonoscopy, and improved ADR decreases the incidence of colorectal cancer. We investigated differences in polyp detection according to the endoscopist's ADR. Patients and methods  We performed a propensity-score matching study using baseline patient characteristics of age, sex, body mass index, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, indication for colonoscopy, bowel preparation, and colonoscope type. We compared polyp detection and colonoscopy procedures between patients who underwent colonoscopy by high-ADR endoscopists (high ADR group) and by low-ADR endoscopists (low ADR group). Results  We matched 334 patients in the high ADR group with 334 in the low ADR group. The ADR was 44.0 % and 26.9 % for the high-ADR and low-ADR endoscopists, respectively. Proximal, nonprotruding, and diminutive adenomas were more frequently detected by high-ADR endoscopists than by low-ADR endoscopists (all P  < 0.001); similarly, more high-risk adenomas were detected by high-ADR endoscopists ( P  = 0.028). Furthermore, more sessile serrated polyps detected by high-ADR endoscopists ( P  = 0.041). High-ADR endoscopists more frequently performed pancolonic chromoendoscopy ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions  Expert detectors often found nonprotruding and diminutive adenomas in the proximal colon along with increased detection rate of high-risk adenomas. Low-ADR endoscopists need to recognize the features of missed adenomas to improve their ADRs.

Morning versus afternoon adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality marker of colonoscopy and operator performance. Prior studies evaluating the effect of an extended workday on the ADR reported variable outcomes that remain controversial. Given the variable results of prior studies and the potential legal implications of reduced ADR in the afternoon, we aimed to further evaluate this parameter and its effect on ADR. We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the morning session and the afternoon session. Afternoon sessions included both sessions following a morning shift and half-day block shifts. Subgroup analyses were performed for ADR comparing morning and afternoon colonoscopies in a continuous workday, advanced ADRs (AADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were also compared. Thirteen articles with 17 341 (61.2%) performed in the morning session and 10 994 (38.8%) performed in the afternoon session were included in this study. There was no statistical significance in the ADR or AADR between morning and afternoon sessions, respectively [relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.14] and (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.5). Afternoon procedures had a significantly higher PDR than morning procedures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98). ADR was not significantly influenced in the afternoon session when operators continued to perform procedures throughout the day or on a half-day block schedule.

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.

Prevalence of 'one and done' in adenoma detection rates: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR), the proportion of an endoscopist's screening colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, is an established quality metric. Several publications have suggested that a technique referred to as "one and done," where less attention is paid to additional polyp detection following discovery of one likely adenoma, may be occurring 1 2 3 . To investigate whether this practice occurs and provide additional context to the significance of ADR, we examined ADR by single and multiple adenomas in the statewide New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR). Patients and methods  A total of 25,324 NHCR patients receiving screening colonoscopies between 2009 and 2014 by 69 endoscopists were analyzed. ADR was dichotomized into high (≥ 20 %) and low (< 20 %) based on 2006 recommended targets in place during the time of the study. ADR-plus (the average number of adenomas in colonoscopies with > 1 adenoma) was dichotomized at mean values into high (≥ 1.5) and low (< 1.5). As suggested by others, a high ADR but low ADR-plus was used to indicate the "one and done" approach. Results  Among endoscopists with an ADR ≥ 20 %, only 5 (7.2 %) had low ADR-plus values and were classified as "one and done." Results for serrated polyp detection were similar. ADR and ADR-plus decreased monotonically with increasing years since residency ( P values for trend ADR = 0.02; ADR-plus = 0.003) after adjusting for patient risk factors. Conclusion  "One and done" infrequently occurred among endoscopists with high ADR in a large statewide registry. The need to replace ADR with other polyp detection metrics (such as ADR-plus) to accurately ascertain performance quality is not supported by these findings.

Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early-stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI² G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

Confounders in Adenoma Detection at Initial Screening Colonoscopy: A Factor in the Assessment of Racial Disparities as a Risk for Colon Cancer

Background and Aims

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer is persistently highest in Black/African-Americans in the United States. While access to care, barriers to screening, and poverty might explain these findings, there is increased interest in examining biological factors that impact the colonic environment. Our group is examining biologic factors that contribute to disparities in development of adenomas prospectively. In preparation for this and to characterize a potential patient population, we conducted a retrospective review of initial screening colonoscopies in a cohort of patients.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on initial average risk screening colonoscopies on patients (age 45-75 years) during 2012 at three institutions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between potential risk factors and the detection of adenomas.

Results

Of the 2225 initial screening colonoscopies 1495 (67.2%) were performed on Black/African-Americans and 566 (25.4%) on Caucasians. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that older age, male sex, current smoking and teaching gastroenterologists were associated with higher detection of adenomas and these were less prevalent among Black/African-Americas except for age. Neither race, ethnicity, BMI, diabetes mellitus, HIV nor insurance were associated with adenoma detection.

Conclusion

In this sample, there was no association between race and adenoma detection. While this may be due to a lower prevalence of risk factors for adenomas in this sample, our findings were confounded by a lower detection rate by consultant gastroenterologists at one institution. The study allowed us to rectify the problem and characterize patients for future trials.

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.

Evaluation of adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per positive participant as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate adenomas per positive participant (APP) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. Furthermore, we wanted to assess whether these parameters differ depending on the setting or profession.

METHODS

Colonoscopy records were obtained from the database of the Austrian certificate of quality for screening colonoscopy. The Spearman correlation was calculated to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR), APC, APP, and advanced ADR. The parameters were compared between surgeons and internists and between private practices and hospitals by using the t test.

RESULTS

A total of 44,142 colonoscopies performed by 202 endoscopists were included. APC showed a strong correlation with ADR (r = 0.94; P < .01), and both showed a similar correlation with the advanced ADR (ADR: r = 0.47; P < 0.01, APC: r = 0.46; P < .01). APP showed weaker correlations compared with all other parameters (ADR: r = 0.36; P < .01; advanced ADR: r = 0.19; P < .01). Private practices did not differ in ADR, APP or APC from hospitals. Among endoscopists with ADRs of ≥25%, 7 (10.3%) had an APP in the lowest quartile, whereas no endoscopists had an APC in the lowest quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

APC did not reveal additional information to ADR, and thus there is no need to use it instead of or additionally to ADR. Although the APP identifies endoscopists who find few adenomas per procedure despite acceptable ADRs, this additional information might not be important in regard to sufficient colorectal cancer prevention, because these endoscopists still had high advanced ADRs.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

New-generation full-spectrum endoscopy versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy: a multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial (J-FUSE Study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although colonoscopy is the criterion standard for detection of colorectal adenomas, some adenomas are missed. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) allows for observation with a 330-degree angle of view, which is expected to decrease the miss rate. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the superiority of FUSE over standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (SFVC) for detection of adenomas; we therefore compared new-generation FUSE and SFVC regarding colorectal adenoma miss rate (AMR) in this, the first reported randomized control trial using new-generation FUSE.

METHODS

We enrolled individuals aged 40 to 75 years who had been referred for screening, surveillance, fecal occult blood test positivity, or symptoms in a prospective randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy in 8 institutions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated stratified randomization. Neither the endoscopists nor patients were blinded to the allocation. The primary endpoint was AMR per patient (AMR-PP).

RESULTS

We enrolled 345 patients and included 319 in the per-protocol analyses. AMR-PP was significantly lower with FUSE (11.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-15.4%) than with SFVC (22.9%; 95% CI, 17.5%-28.3%; P < .001). AMR-PP for lesions ≤5 mm in size was significantly lower with FUSE (10.4%; 95% CI, 6.5%-14.3%) than with SFVC (20.0%; 95% CI, 14.4%-25.6%; P = .0057). Furthermore, AMR-PP in the ascending colon was significantly lower with FUSE (4.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-7.2%) than with SFVC (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-15.1%; P = .0212).

CONCLUSIONS

FUSE is superior to SFVC regarding both AMR-PP and AMR; additionally, AMR-PP is both significantly lower with FUSE than SFVC for lesions ≤5 mm in size and in the ascending colon. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000020448.).

Colonoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma detection in the right colon

Shorter colonoscopic withdrawal time (CWT) has been associated with lower adenoma detection rate (ADR), which can increase the risk of interval colorectal cancer (ICC) that commonly arises in the right colon (RC). Therefore, a better ADR in the RC could decrease the incidence of ICC. We analyzed the relationship between CWT and ADR in the RC and entire colon.We retrospectively reviewed the patients who had undergone screening colonoscopy at Chungnam National University Hospital between March 2015 and February 2016. We enrolled 5370 patients in whom colonoscopies were performed by 7 gastroenterologists. We categorized patients into 4 groups in the RC and 6 groups in the entire colon by CWT. Multivariable analysis was used for detection of adenoma in the RC and entire colon.In the RC, the odds ratio (OR) of CWT longer than 3 minutes was 3.70, compared to CWT of <2 minutes [3.06-4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI), P < .001]. In the entire colon, the OR of CWT between 9 to 10 minutes and longer than 10 minutes was 3.34 [2.61-4.27, 95% CI, P < .001] and 3.49 [2.80-4.33, 95% CI, P < .001] compared to CWT of <6 minutes.Based on our result, we suggest that the optimum CWT in the RC should exceed 3 minutes, and considering the "ceiling effect," the optimum CWT in the entire colon should exceed 9 minutes.

Patients with small and diminutive proximal hyperplastic polyps have higher rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia compared with patients without serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The association of proximal small and diminutive hyperplastic polyps (HPs) with synchronous advanced neoplasia is not well-defined. However, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), even when small, are known to portend a risk of synchronous neoplasia. Currently, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer does not recommend a change in the surveillance interval when proximal small HPs are detected. We aimed to compare the rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia in a screening colonoscopy cohort of patients with small and then diminutive proximal HPs in comparison, first to a cohort absent any serrated or proximal HPs and then in comparison with a cohort with small proximal SSPs.

METHODS

Consecutive screening colonoscopies were recorded between 2005 and 2010 at an academic medical center. Patients were divided into 3 mutually exclusive groups. Group 1 consisted of patients with at least 1 HP that was proximal to the sigmoid colon, <1 cm in endoscopic size, and up to 3 total HPs in number. Group 2 included patients without any proximal HPs or SSPs. Group 3 consisted of patients with 1 to 2 SSPs, with at least 1 being proximal to the sigmoid colon, that were <1 cm in endoscopic size and without dysplasia. Rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia in patients with small (<1 cm) and diminutive (≤5 mm) proximal HPs were compared with the rates for the other 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 482 of 2569 patients (18.8%) with a small proximal HP who met the criteria for Group 1. The rate of synchronous advanced neoplasia in patients with a small proximal HP (61/482, 12.7%) was significantly greater compared with the average risk in the non-serrated cohort (Group 2, 133/1878, 7.1%; P < .001). There was no significant difference in the rate of synchronous advanced neoplasia when the small proximal HP group was subdivided by size (≤5 mm, 51/404, 12.6% vs 6-9 mm, 10/78, 12.8%; P = 1.00). The rate of synchronous advanced neoplasia in patients with diminutive (≤5 mm) proximal HPs (51/404, 12.6%) was not significantly different from the rate observed with proximal SSPs of similar size (17/113, 15.0%; P = .529).

CONCLUSION

Patients with small and diminutive proximal HPs tend to harbor higher rates of synchronous advanced neoplasia compared with those without any serrated lesions detected on screening colonoscopy. Surveillance outcomes for metachronous advanced neoplasia for patients with small proximal HPs deserves further study. The synchronous advanced neoplasia rate in patients with proximal diminutive HPs is similar to that of proximal diminutive SSPs and could have implications in a resect and discard strategy.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Asymptomatic Patients with Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a powerful measure of screening colonoscopy quality. Patients who undergo colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) have increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia, but it is not known whether separate quality benchmarks are required. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional ADR to the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of positive FIT, in asymptomatic average-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 50 years old who underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive FIT between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014, at a tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Center were identified. FIT performed for any indication other than average-risk screening was excluded. The comparison group included average-risk patients ≥ 50 years old undergoing screening colonoscopy during the same time frame. The two groups were compared for ADR, advanced neoplasm [adenoma ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous, high-grade dysplasia, CRC, sessile serrated polyp (SSP) ≥ 10 mm], CRC, and SSP detection after propensity score adjustment using a logistic regression model adjusted for endoscopist.

RESULTS

There were 207 patients in the FIT group and 601 in the screening colonoscopy comparison group. After propensity score adjustment, ADR (72.9 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003), number of adenomas per colonoscopy (3.3 ± 3.6 vs. 1.4 ± 2.3, p = 0.033), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (32.4 vs. 11.0%, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the FIT group. There were no significant differences in the number of CRC and the SSP detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of average-risk Veterans, the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of a positive FIT was higher than the ADR of screening colonoscopies. Patients with a positive FIT also had significantly more adenomas per colonoscopy and advanced neoplasms. These findings suggest that the quality of colonoscopies performed for a positive FIT is insufficiently assessed by the conventional ADR and requires additional quality metrics.

Adenoma detection rate metrics in colorectal cancer surveillance colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

A target goal for screening adenoma detection rate (S-ADR) of ≥ 25% has been set to define high-quality colonoscopy performance. However, there is no current accepted target goal for ADR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance. This makes quality assessment challenging when physicians perform cancer surveillance colonoscopy but minimal screening procedures.

METHODS

In this cohort study, consecutive colonoscopies performed at either Rush University Medical Center or Rush Oak Park Hospital by a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon in average risk screening population and CRC surveillance population were reviewed retrospectively from 2006 to 2012 and prospectively from 2013 to 2016. ADR in first surveillance colonoscopy following surgical resection of CRC (CRC-ADR) was reported in high-quality detectors (HQD) or low-quality detectors (LQD) based on achievement of 25% ADR in consecutive screening colonoscopy in average risk patients. Pearson's correlation was used to describe the association between individual S-ADR and CRC-ADR for colonoscopists.

RESULTS

There was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.88, p = 0.002) between ADR in average risk screening and first time CRC surveillance. For HQD as defined by S-ADR ≥ 25% (n = 10 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 37.7% (78/207, SD 8%) which was very similar to their respective S-ADR of 33.4% (816/2440, p = 0.22). For LQD (n = 5 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 20.2% (40/198) which was similar to their respective S-ADR of 20.1% (119/591, p = 0.99). The CRC-ADR was significantly higher for HQD than for LQD (37.7 vs. 20.2%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The major finding of this study is a defined CRC-ADR for HQD based on the ability to achieve S-ADR ≥ 25%. S-ADR strongly correlates with CRC-ADR. CRC-ADR is quite similar to the colonoscopists' respective S-ADR for both HQD and LQD. For colonoscopists who perform limited screening colonoscopies but do perform CRC surveillance colonoscopies, ADR metrics similar to S-ADR to assess quality in colonoscopy could be considered.

Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and North America. Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the colon but is not perfect, and small or flat adenomas can be missed which increases the risk of patients subsequently developing colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the most widely used marker of quality, and low rates are associated with increased rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Standards of colonoscopy and adenoma detection vary widely between different endoscopists. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rate are therefore required. Many devices have been purported to increase adenoma detection rate. This review looks at current available evidence for device technology to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy.

Cap cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized back-to-back study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EndoCuff is a disposable device applied to standard colonoscopes to improve mucosal visualization. Randomized parallel trials have shown that EndoCuff increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The primary aim of this study was to compare the ADR between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopies within a randomized back-to-back trial.

METHODS

This was a single-center randomized crossover study (NCT02374515) involving adult patients undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Participants received back-to-back standard colonoscopies and EACs in a random order, performed by the same endoscopist. All polyps were excised, but only those proven at histology to be adenomas were considered for analysis.

RESULTS

From February 2015 to March 2016, a total of 288 patients were enrolled, and 274 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Compared with standard colonoscopies, EACs increased the ADR (29.6% vs 26.3%; P < .01) and the number of diagnosed adenomas (176 vs 129; P < .01), particularly in the left (73 vs 46; P < .01) and right sides of the colon (83 vs 63; P < .01). EAC increased the detection of adenomas <5 mm (129 vs 84; P < .01), but no difference was found with regard to larger lesions. In 7.3% of patients, findings of EndoCuff shortened the surveillance interval determined by standard colonoscopy findings. EndoCuff caused 7 mucosal erosions (2.5% of patients), requiring a mucosal adrenaline injection in 1 case.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EndoCuff increases the number of identified adenomas, primarily small adenomas in the left and right sides of the colon. This increases the ADR and allows a better definition of the surveillance program. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02374515.).

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and novel quality indicators for screening colonoscopy. A proposal for quality measures tool kit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most validated quality indicator for colonoscopy. Calculating ADR may not yield information in regards to advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced ADR). In addition, calculating ADR for individual endoscopists cannot distinguish between those who find only one versus more than one adenoma per colonoscopy. Several novel quality indictors were recently proposed to ensure adequate assessment of quality during colonoscopy. Our study aims to determine the correlation between ADR and novel quality indicators.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in a university hospital setting. Patient characteristics and colonoscopy findings were combined and analyzed to calculate the correlation of ADR with novel quality indicators using Spearman's rank-order correlation were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1433 patients out of 2116 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant positive correlation between ADR correlated with [advanced-ADR-2, nonadvanced-ADR, adenoma per colonoscopy, Multiplicity detection rate and ADR-Plus] r = (0.82, 0.99, 0.99, 0.07 and 0.85), respectively. However, ADR did not correlate with advanced-ADR and adenomas per positive participant.

CONCLUSION

Adding advanced-ADR and adenomas per positive participant to ADR may create a more comprehensive quality indicators tool kit, which is sensitive and difficult to game. Future studies are needed to investigate the impact of the tool kit on the interval cancers and adenoma missing rate.

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.

Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Similar to achieving adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), achieving adequate serrated polyp detection rates (SDRs) may be essential to the prevention of CRC associated with the serrated pathway. Previous studies have been based on data from high-volume endoscopists at single academic centers. Based on a hypothesis that ADR is correlated with SDR, we stratified a large, diverse group of endoscopists (n = 77 practicing at 28 centers) into high performers and low performers, based on ADR, to provide data for corresponding target SDR benchmarks.

METHODS

By using colonoscopies in adults aged ≥50 years (4/09-12/14), we stratified endoscopists by high and low ADRs (<15%, 15%-<25%, 25%-<35%, ≥35%) to determine corresponding SDRs by using 2 SDR measures, for screening and surveillance colonoscopies separately: (1) Clinically significant SDR (CSSDR), meaning colonoscopies with any sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), traditional serrated adenoma (TSA), or hyperplastic polyp (HP) >1 cm anywhere in the colon or HP >5 mm in the proximal colon only divided by the total number of screening and surveillance colonoscopies, respectively. (2) Proximal SDR (PSDR) meaning colonoscopies with any serrated polyp (SSA/P, HP, TSA) of any size proximal to the sigmoid colon divided by the total number of screening and surveillance colonoscopies, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 45,996 (29,960 screening) colonoscopies by 77 endoscopists (28 facilities) were included. Moderately strong positive correlation coefficients were observed for screening ADR/CSSDR (P = .69) and ADR/PSDR (P = .79) and a strong positive correlation (P = .82) for CSSDR/PSDR (P < .0001 for all) was observed. For ADR ≥25%, endoscopists' median (interquartile range) screening CSSDR was 6.8% (4.3%-8.6%) and PSDR was 10.8% (8.6%-16.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Derived from ADR, the primary colonoscopy quality indicator, our results suggest potential SDR benchmarks (CSSDR = 7% and PSDR = 11%) that may guide adequate serrated polyp detection. Because CSSDR and PSDR are strongly correlated, endoscopists could use the simpler PSDR calculation to assess quality.

Maintaining low non-neoplastic polypectomy rates in high-quality screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-neoplastic polypectomies (NNPs) add pathology and procedural costs but do not reduce cancer risk and should be minimized. We sought to define the minimal non-neoplastic polypectomy rate (NNPR) for those colonoscopists achieving high-quality colorectal cancer screening based on adenoma detection rates (ADRs).

METHODS

NNPRs for colonoscopists achieving high-quality adenoma detection rates were reported to determine minimal NNPR goals. Two approaches to tracking NNPR monitoring were compared: (1) total NNPR, an NNPR inclusive of all non-neoplastic specimens with exclusion of only hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated polyp, and adenoma; and (2) normal tissue-only NNPR, an NNPR inclusive of those specimens with only normal colonic mucosa or lymphoid follicles.

RESULTS

For those performing colonoscopy with high-quality ADRs (≥25%), half (6/12) of the colonoscopists had a total NNPR of ≤8.5% and 2 gastroenterologists had a total NNPR of ≤3.4%. The mean total NNPR of the cohort was 8.7% versus the normal tissue only NNPR, which was 7.5% (mean difference of 1.2%, standard deviation ± 0.97). The widest variation between total NNPR versus normal tissue only NNPR for any colonoscopist was 2.9%. The total NNPR ranged between 2.6% and 21.3% among 14 colonoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy with a high-quality ADR can be achieved while maintaining a low total NNPR. A total NNPR, inclusive of all non-neoplastic specimens as an alternative to an approach in which all specimens require individual review in order to select out only normal tissue can be considered for monitoring of NNPR.

Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy Increases Detection of Advanced Adenomas and Polyps

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been reported to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in Asian population. However, CAC trials in non-Asian population have had conflicting results. Studies in North America have shown an improvement in ADRs with the use of CAC, but it mainly included white and African American patients. Given the lack of prospective studies of CAC in Hispanics, we conducted this randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized controlled trial comparing CAC with standard colonoscopy (SC) in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Our primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, mean polyp and ADR, advanced ADR (AADR) and detection rates based on polyp morphology and location.

RESULTS

A total of 440 patients were included in the study (88.5% Hispanic). Cecal and terminal ileum intubation rates were similar in both groups (CAC: 97% and 86% versus SC: 99% and 81%, respectively). CAC did not improve ADR in comparison with SC (0.65 versus 0.52; P = 0.079); however, CAC had a higher AADR in comparison with SC (9.9% versus 4.6%; P = 0.049). CAC detected significantly more pedunculated polyps as compared with flat and sessile polyps (P = 0.011). Complication rates were similar in the CAC and SC groups (0.9% versus 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a predominantly Hispanic population, no difference was seen in the mean ADR with the use of CAC. However, CAC, when compared with SC, resulted in an increased AADR and mean polyp detection rate.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopy: Is Indication a Predictor?

PURPOSE

To describe factors that may influence adenoma detection rate (ADR), with an emphasis on the indication for colonoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single endoscopist between January 2008 and December 2014 were reviewed. Indications for colonoscopy were tested for association with ADR after adjusting for age and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 2648 colonoscopies were analyzed. Adenomas were detected in 630 patients (23.8%). Overall ADR was 22.9% in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. ADR was higher in fecal occult blood test-triggered screening colonoscopies (32%) than colonoscopies performed for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (21.7%) or asymptomatic average-risk individuals (20.4%) (P=0.05). ADR was 36.1% in patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy and ranged from 12% to 30% in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

ADR differs depending on whether the indication is screening, surveillance, or diagnosis. Within screening colonoscopies, ADR seems to be higher in patients with a positive fecal occult blood test.

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.

Presence of small sessile serrated polyps increases rate of advanced neoplasia upon surveillance compared with isolated low-risk tubular adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) stratifies patients with sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) without cytologic dysplasia of <10 mm in size as at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia and recommends management similar to low-risk conventional tubular adenomas. Evidence supporting the recommended surveillance interval for these low-risk SSPs is limited. We aimed to assess rates of metachronous advanced neoplasia based on the presence of an initial low-risk SSP compared with isolated low-risk tubular adenomas.

METHODS

Colonoscopy data were retrieved for 2260 patients found to have an adenoma or SSP on pathology records between 2005 and 2011 at an academic medical center. The 788 patients who met study design criteria were stratified into 4 groups based on the presence of a high- or low-risk adenoma (HRA or LRA) and of a synchronous SSP on initial colonoscopy. The rates of advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy were then compared between groups.

RESULTS

The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance in the LRA inclusive of SSP group (12/66, 18.2%) was greater than in the LRA without any SSP group (29/370, 7.8%; P = .019). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance in patients with isolated low-risk SSP (10/56, 17.9%) remained significantly greater than those with isolated low-risk tubular adenomas (29/370, 7.8%; P = .024). The rate of advanced neoplasia upon surveillance in the LRA inclusive of SSP group (18.2%) was comparable with the rate observed in the index HRA without any SSP group (15.9%) (40/252, P = .709).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of advanced neoplasia upon surveillance in patients with initial low-risk SSPs is higher than in patients with initial isolated low-risk tubular adenomas and more similar to patients with initial high-risk tubular adenomas. These findings suggest that the rate of metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with what are considered by USMSTF as "low-risk" SSPs is higher than in those without SSPs. Therefore, a surveillance interval that accounts for the presence of SSPs even in small lesions without cytologic dysplasia should be considered.

Comparison of adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy as a quality indicator of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Although adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been proposed as a quality indicator of colonoscopies, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is a promising alternative to ADR, as it reflects inspection over the entire length of the colon. This study investigated the correlation between ADR and APC, and compared the efficacy of ADR and APC based on the correlation of each with the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR).

STUDY

Two prospectively collected databases, including the 1142 subjects who underwent screening colonoscopies by 28 colonoscopists, were retrospectively reviewed. AADR1 were definded as the proportion of participants having advanced neoplasms, and AADR2 were definded as the proportion of participants having advanced neoplasms or three or more adenomas. Pearson correlation and Steiger's z-test was used to evaluate the relationship between ADR-APC, ADR-AADR and APC-AADR.

RESULTS

The ADRs ranged from 16.67 to 66.67% (mean, 37.29%) and APCs ranged from 0.22 to 1.28 (mean, 0.65). The ADR and APC showed a significant correlation (R = 0.82; p < 0.001). The screening ADR was significantly correlated with AADR1/AADR2 (R = 0.60; p = 0.001 and R = 0.64; p < 0.001, respectively). APC was also significantly correlated with AADR1/AADR2 (R = 0.65; p < 0.001 and R = 0.77; p < 0.001, respectively). The correlation coefficient for APC-AADR2 was higher than ADR-AADR2 (0.77 versus 0.64, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopists' ADRs and APC were significantly correlated. Moreover, as the correlation coefficient for AADR was higher with APC than it was with ADR, APC might be a better quality indicator of colonoscopy than ADR.

Screening colonoscopy volume and detection of colorectal neoplasms: a state-wide study from Bavaria, Germany

Screening colonoscopy enables early detection of colorectal cancer and its precancerous lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the association of screening colonoscopy volume with colorectal neoplasm detection rate in routine practice. A registry-based study of individuals aged at least 55 years who underwent screening colonoscopy in Bavaria, Germany, between 2007 and 2009 was performed. Colorectal neoplasm detection rates (95% confidence intervals) were determined per physician. Physicians were grouped according to the number of screening colonoscopies performed per year (<50, 50-99, 100-199, ≥200). A total of 203 363 individuals (median age 64 years, 55.2% women) underwent screening colonoscopy between 2007 and 2009. Colonoscopies were performed by 509 physicians. The detection rate of any neoplasm increased with screening colonoscopy volume from 21.9% among physicians conducting fewer than 50 screening colonoscopies per year to 27.5% among physicians conducting 200 or more screening colonoscopies per year (P-value for trend <0.0001). Increases in detection rates with colonoscopy volume were also observed for advanced neoplasms and for colorectal cancer (P-value for trend 0.16 and <0.0001, respectively). Differences were largest between physicians conducting fewer than 50 screening colonoscopies per year and other physicians. These results support a potential role of a minimum colonoscopy volume for high-quality colonoscopy screening. Differences in neoplasm detection rates were high between physicians conducting fewer than 50 screening colonoscopies per year and physicians with higher screening colonoscopy volume.

Simple colonoscopy reporting system checking the detection rate of colon polyps

AIM: To present a simple colonoscopy reporting system that can be checked easily the detection rate of colon polyps.

METHODS: A simple colonoscopy reporting system Kosin Gastroenterology (KG quality reporting system) was developed. The polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) are easily calculated to use this system.

RESULTS: In our gastroenterology center, the PDR, ADR, SDR, and AADR test results from each gastroenterologist were updated, every month. Between June 2014, when the program was started, and December 2014, the overall PDR and ADR in our center were 62.5% and 41.4%, respectively. And the overall SDR and AADR were 7.5% and 12.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: We envision that KG quality reporting system can be applied to develop a comprehensive system to check colon polyp detection rates in other gastroenterology centers.

Trends in Adenoma Detection Rates During the First 10 Years of the German Screening Colonoscopy Program

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator of screening colonoscopy; it is inversely associated with risk of interval cancers and colorectal cancer mortality. We assessed trends in the ADR in the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program.

METHODS

We calculated age-adjusted and age-specific detection rates of nonadvanced adenomas and advanced adenomas for each calendar year based on 4.4 million screening colonoscopies conducted from 2003 through 2012 and reported to the German screening colonoscopy registry.

RESULTS

We observed a steady and strong increase in rate of detection of nonadvanced adenomas in both sexes and all age groups. Age-adjusted rates of detection of nonadvanced adenomas increased from 13.3% to 22.3% among men and from 8.4% to 14.9% among women. This increase was mostly due to an increase in detection rates of adenomas <0.5 cm, and it is partly explained by an innovation effect (higher ADRs among incoming colonoscopists than among leaving colonoscopists, and relatively stable ADRs among continuing colonoscopists). Only modest increases were observed in detection rates of advanced adenomas (from 7.4% to 9.0% among men, and from 4.4% to 5.2% among women) and colorectal cancer. In 2012, overall ADR reached 31.3% and 20.1% in men and women, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a strong increase in ADRs from 2003 through 2012 in Germany. Although we cannot exclude the effects of secular trends in colorectal neoplasm prevalence, the observed increase was mainly the result of a steady increase in detection of nonadvanced adenomas (especially adenomas <0.5 cm). Further research should address potential implications for defining screening and surveillance intervals.

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.

[Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a tandem colonoscopy study]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The miss rate of colon polyps and its related factors have not been clearly identified yet. This study aims to review the miss rate of polyps both on the patient-level and on the polyp-level and to analyze the factors affecting the miss rate such as those related to the endoscopist, procedure, patient, and polyp.

METHODS

From August 2011 to August 2013, patients who underwent elective second colonoscopy for resection of polyps, the sizes of which were not small enough to be resected by biopsy forceps alone at first colonoscopy, were enrolled retrospectively.

RESULTS

The miss rate on the patient-level was 59.2% (234/395) and on the polyp-level was 27.9% (578/2,068). There was no significant difference in the miss rate depending on the experience of the endoscopists or characteristics of the patients. In terms of the procedure, the miss rate was higher when the colonoscopy was performed in the afternoon (OR 1.632, p=0.046). It was found that the miss rate of polyps increased when the polyps were small (OR 4.595, p<0.001 in <5 mm/OR 3.447, p<0.001 in 5-10 mm), flat or sessile (OR 2.406, p<0.001 in flat/OR 1.768, p=0.002 in sessile), and located in the left colon (OR 1.391, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The experience of endoscopists did not have influence on the accuracy of polyp detection. However, the fatigue of endoscopists in the afternoon is considered to render polyp detection less accurate. Also, the large curves and folds of the sigmoid colon are regarded as a reason for the higher miss rate of polyps in the left colon.

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.

Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing

BACKGROUND

An accurate system for tracking of colonoscopy quality and surveillance intervals could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance. The purpose of this study was to create and test such a system across multiple institutions utilizing natural language processing (NLP).

METHODS

From 42,569 colonoscopies with pathology records from 13 centers, we randomly sampled 750 paired reports. We trained (n=250) and tested (n=500) an NLP-based program with 19 measurements that encompass colonoscopy quality measures and surveillance interval determination, using blinded, paired, annotated expert manual review as the reference standard. The remaining 41,819 nonannotated documents were processed through the NLP system without manual review to assess performance consistency. The primary outcome was system accuracy across the 19 measures.

RESULTS

A total of 176 (23.5%) documents with 252 (1.8%) discrepant content points resulted from paired annotation. Error rate within the 500 test documents was 31.2% for NLP and 25.4% for the paired annotators (P=0.001). At the content point level within the test set, the error rate was 3.5% for NLP and 1.9% for the paired annotators (P=0.04). When eight vaguely worded documents were removed, 125 of 492 (25.4%) were incorrect by NLP and 104 of 492 (21.1%) by the initial annotator (P=0.07). Rates of pathologic findings calculated from NLP were similar to those calculated by annotation for the majority of measurements. Test set accuracy was 99.6% for CRC, 95% for advanced adenoma, 94.6% for nonadvanced adenoma, 99.8% for advanced sessile serrated polyps, 99.2% for nonadvanced sessile serrated polyps, 96.8% for large hyperplastic polyps, and 96.0% for small hyperplastic polyps. Lesion location showed high accuracy (87.0-99.8%). Accuracy for number of adenomas was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

NLP can accurately report adenoma detection rate and the components for determining guideline-adherent colonoscopy surveillance intervals across multiple sites that utilize different methods for reporting colonoscopy findings.

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.

Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards?

BACKGROUND

Standards for the detection of adenomas during screening colonoscopy are widely used to measure examination quality. No such standards exist for sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs).

OBJECTIVE

To measure both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and SSA detection rate (SSADR) during screening colonoscopy before and after quality improvement/financial incentive measures.

DESIGN

Retrospective determination of baseline ADR/SSADR by the endoscopist, followed by prospective collection of data after informing physicians of baseline detection rates.

SETTING

Tertiary cancer center with a large cancer screening program.

PATIENTS

A total of 2833 average-risk colorectal cancer screening patients 50 to 75 years of age undergoing initial colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION

Electronic medical records for indication and demographics, endoscopy report, and pathology report.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Detection rates of adenomas and SSAs by sex.

RESULTS

The overall ADR in male and female patients was 50.6% and 36.6%, respectively. The overall detection rate of advanced adenomas in male and female patients was 12.4% and 6.5%, respectively. The overall SSADR in male and female patients was 10.1% and 7.1%, respectively. In 108 patients (3.8% of entire group), SSAs were the only premalignant lesions found. Detection rates of both types of premalignant polyps improved over time but did not reach statistical significance.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center experience with limited sample size and small group of endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

ADRs far in excess of current standards are achievable. Cecal withdrawal time is associated with the ADR. Prevalence of SSA rivals that of advanced adenomas and is greater than current medical literature suggests. The combination of monitoring and financial incentives did not result in statistically significant improvement in ADRs.

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.

Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to use an open-source natural language-processing tool (NLP) to accurately assess total, anatomic (left and right colon), and advanced adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and to determine how these metrics differ between high- and low-performing endoscopists.

METHODS

An NLP tool was developed using the Apache Unstructured Information Management Architecture and queried all procedure records for screening colonoscopies performed in patients aged 50-75 years at a single institution from April 1998 to December 2013. Validation was performed on 200 procedures and associated pathology reports. The total, left colon, right colon, and advanced ADRs were calculated and physicians were stratified by total ADR (<20% and ≥20%). Comparisons of colonoscopy characteristics and ADR comparisons (advanced, left, right, and right/left ratio) were determined by t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

The total ADR for 34,998 screening colonoscopies from 1998 to 2013 was 20.3%, as determined via NLP. The institutional left and right colon ADRs were 10.1% and 12.5%, respectively. The overall advanced ADR was 4.4%. Endoscopists with total ADRs ≥20% had higher left (12.4%) and right colon (16.4%) ADRs than endoscopists with ADRs <20% (left ADR=5.6%, right ADR=5.8%). Endoscopists with ADRs ≥20% had higher individual right/left ADR ratios than those with low ADRs (1.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.4) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0.4), P=0.02). There was a moderate positive correlation between advanced ADR detection and both right (Spearman's rho=0.5, P=0.05) and left colon (Spearman's rho=0.4, P=0.03) ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutions should consider the use of anatomic and advanced ADRs determined via natural language processing as a refined measure of colonoscopy quality. The ability to continuously monitor and provide feedback on colonoscopy quality metrics may encourage endoscopists to refine technique, resulting in overall improvements in adenoma detection.

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.