Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon

Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control.

METHODS

Average-risk 50-75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.

Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aims to compare polyp detection performance of "Deep-GI," a newly developed artificial intelligence (AI) model, to a previously validated AI model computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) using various false positive (FP) thresholds and determining the best threshold for each model.

METHODS

Colonoscopy videos were collected prospectively and reviewed by three expert endoscopists (gold standard), trainees, CADe (CAD EYE; Fujifilm Corp.), and Deep-GI. Polyp detection sensitivity (PDS), polyp miss rates (PMR), and false-positive alarm rates (FPR) were compared among the three groups using different FP thresholds for the duration of bounding boxes appearing on the screen.

RESULTS

In total, 170 colonoscopy videos were used in this study. Deep-GI showed the highest PDS (99.4% vs. 85.4% vs. 66.7%, p<0.01) and the lowest PMR (0.6% vs. 14.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.01) when compared to CADe and trainees, respectively. Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated lower FPR at FP thresholds of ≥0.5 (12.1 vs. 22.4) and ≥1 second (4.4 vs. 6.8) (both p<0.05). However, when the threshold was raised to ≥1.5 seconds, the FPR became comparable (2 vs. 2.4, p=0.3), while the PMR increased from 2% to 10%.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated a higher PDS with significantly lower FPR at ≥0.5- and ≥1-second thresholds. At the ≥1.5-second threshold, both systems showed comparable FPR with increased PMR.

Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an imperative quality measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This retrospective observational study aimed to determine the trend of polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR in asymptomatic average- and high-risk participants in different age groups who underwent screening colonoscopy over the seven years from April 2012 to March 2019 in a tertiary gastroenterology referral center of Iran. Of 1676 participants, 51.8 % were men (mean age 52.3 years). The overall PDR and ADR were 22.7 %, and 13.5 %, respectively. Both Polyps and adenomas were more common in age groups 51-59 and ≥60 years in high-risk patients than in the corresponding groups of average-risk patients (p < 0.05). Also, both PDR and ADR were more frequent in men than in women among all studied age groups, but it was statistically significant only for the youngest age group (16.8 % versus 10.5 %, p < 0.05) for PDR and the oldest age group (19.7 % versus 13 %, p < 0.05) for ADR, respectively. The trend of total ADR was upward over 7 years in both average-risk (6.7 % to 13.3 %) and high-risk (9.8 % to 27 %) groups and across all age groups in both sexes. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that high-risk individuals had an elevated risk of adenoma compared with average-risk patients (OR: 1.6, p = 0.006). Substantial variation in thresholds of polyp and adenoma detection by age, sex, and risk categories emphasizes the need for a risk-adapted approach to CRC screening and prevention programs.

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.

Prepackaged formula low-residue diet vs. self-prepared low-residue diet before colonoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and aims

Compared with self-prepared LRD, a prepackaged low-residue diet (LRD) can improve patient compliance, but whether it can further improve the quality of bowel preparation is uncertain. The study aimed to compare the application of the prepackaged formula LRD with self-prepared LRD in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 15 centers. The eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the formula LRD group and the self-prepared LRD group. On the day before the colonoscopy, subjects in the self-prepared LRD group were instructed to consume a restricted LRD prepared by themselves, while subjects in the formula LRD group were given six bags of prepackaged formula LRD and instructed to consume them according to their individual need. The primary outcome was an adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes mainly included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, dietary restriction compliance rate, tolerance, satisfaction, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT03943758.

Results

A total of 550 subjects were recruited. Compared with the self-prepared LRD group, the formula LRD group showed a higher adequate bowel preparation rate (94.5 vs. 80.4%; P < 0.01), BBPS scores (7.87 ± 1.13 vs. 6.75 ± 1.47; P < 0.01), dietary compliance rate (92.4 vs. 78.9%; P < 0.01), tolerance (P < 0.01 in degree of hunger, intensity of physical strength, and negative influence on daily activities), satisfaction (8.56 ± 1.61 vs. 7.20 ± 2.02; P < 0.01), and ADR (25.6 vs. 16.0%; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions.

Conclusion

Compared with self-prepared LRD, the formula LRD showed similar safety and higher bowel preparation quality, compliance, and tolerance in bowel preparation. More formula LRDs could be designed according to different dietary habits and ethnic populations, and further researches are warranted to confirm their effect.

Clinical trial registration

https://register.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03943758.

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Potential Factors Predicting Histopathologically Upgrade Discrepancies between Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy of the Colorectal Low-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Endoscopic Resection Specimens

Background

It was gradually accepted that endoscopic fragment biopsy (EFB) diagnosis cannot accurately guarantee the absence of higher-grade neoplasms within the lesion of the digestive tract. There are no well-established predictors for histopathologically upgrade discrepancies between EFB diagnosing colorectal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and endoscopic resection (ER) specimens.

Methods

A total of 918 colorectal LGINs was histopathologically diagnosed by EFB, including 162 cases with upgrade discrepancy and 756 concordant cases. We compared clinicopathological data of EFB and ER specimens between these two groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors for this upgrade histopathology.

Results

The predominant upgrade discrepancy of LGINs diagnosed by EFB was upgrades to high-grade dysplasia (114/918, 12.4%), followed by upgrades to intramucosal carcinoma (33/918, 3.6%), submucosal adenocarcinoma (10/918, 1.1%), and advanced adenocarcinoma (5/918, 0.5%). NSAID history (OR 4.83; 95% CI, 2.27-10.27; p < 0.001), insufficient EFB number (OR 2.99; 95% CI, 1.91-4.68; p < 0.001), maximum diameter ≥ 1.0 cm (OR 6.18; 95% CI, 1.32-28.99; p = 0.021), lobulated shape (OR 2.68; 95% CI, 1.65-4.36; p < 0.001), erythema (OR 2.42; 95% CI, 1.50-3.91; p < 0.001), erosion (OR 7.12; 95% CI, 3.91-12.94; p < 0.001), surface unevenness (OR 2.31; 95% CI, 1.33-4.01; p = 0.003), and distal location of the target adenoma (OR 3.29; 95% CI, 1.68-6.41; p < 0.001) were associated with the histologically upgrade discrepancies.

Conclusion

NSAID history, insufficient EFB number, adenoma size and location, and abnormal macroscopic patterns are potential predictors for upgrade histopathology of LGINs diagnosed by EFBs. The standardization of EFB number and advanced imaging techniques could minimize the risk of neglecting the potential of this upgrade histopathology.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality

Continuous measurement of quality indicators (QIs) should be a routine part of colonoscopy, as a wide variation still exists in the performance and quality levels of colonoscopy in Korea. Among the many QIs of colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate, average withdrawal time, bowel preparation adequacy, and cecal intubation rate should be monitored in daily clinical practice to improve the quality of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate is the best indicator of the quality of colonoscopy; however, it has many limitations for universal use in daily practice. With the development of natural language processing, the adenoma detection rate is expected to become more effective and useful. It is important that colonoscopists do not strictly and mechanically maintain an average withdrawal time of 6 minutes but instead perform careful colonoscopy to maximally expose the colonic mucosa with a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes. To achieve adequate bowel preparation, documentation of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) should be a routine part of colonoscopy. When colonoscopists routinely followed the bowel preparation protocols, ≥85% of outpatient screening colonoscopies had a BBPS score of ≥6. In addition, the cecal intubation rate should be ≥95% of all screening colonoscopies. The first step in improving colonoscopy quality in Korea is to apply these key performance measurements in clinical practice.

Case-mix adjustment to compare colonoscopy performance between endoscopy centers: a nationwide registry study

BACKGROUND : Nonmodifiable patient and endoscopy characteristics might influence colonoscopy performance. Differences in these so-called case-mix factors are likely to exist between endoscopy centers. This study aimed to examine the importance of case-mix adjustment when comparing performance between endoscopy centers. METHODS : Prospectively collected data recorded in the Dutch national colonoscopy registry between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adequate bowel preparation rate (ABPR) were analyzed. Additionally, polyp detection rate (PDR) was studied in screening colonoscopies following a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Variation in case-mix factors between endoscopy centers and expected outcomes for each performance measure were calculated per endoscopy center based on case-mix factors (sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist [ASA] score, indication) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:  363 840 colonoscopies were included from 51 endoscopy centers. Mean percentages per endoscopy center were significantly different for age > 65 years, male patients, ASA ≥ III, and diagnostic colonoscopies (all P < 0.001). In the FIT-positive screening population, significant differences were observed between endoscopy centers for age > 65 years, male patients, and ASA ≥ III (all P ≤ 0.001). The expected CIR, ABPR, and PDR ranged from 95.0 % to 96.9 %, from 93.6 % to 96.4 %, and from 76.2 % to 79.1 %, respectively. Age, sex, ASA classification, and indication were significant case-mix factors for CIR and ABPR. In the FIT-positive screening population, age, sex, and ASA classification were significant case-mix factors for PDR. CONCLUSION:  Our findings emphasize the importance of considering case-mix adjustment when comparing colonoscopy performance measures between endoscopy centers.

Risk Factors for High-Risk Adenoma on the First Lifetime Colonoscopy Using Decision Tree Method: A Cross-Sectional Study in 6,047 Asymptomatic Koreans

Background/Aims: As risk of colorectal neoplasm is varied even in persons with “average-risk,” risk evaluation and tailored screening are needed. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of high-risk adenoma (HRA) in healthy individuals and determine the characteristics of advanced neoplasia (AN) among individual polyps.

Methods: Asymptomatic adults who underwent the first lifetime screening colonoscopy at the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center (SNUH GC) were recruited from 2004 to 2007 as SNUH GC Cohort and were followed for 10 years. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the subjects with and without AN (≥10 mm in size, villous component, and/or high-grade dysplasia and/or cancer) or HRA (AN and/or 3 or more adenomas). For individual polyps, correlations between clinical or endoscopic features and histologic grades were evaluated using a decision tree method.

Results: A total of 6,047 subjects were included and 5,621 polyps were found in 2,604 (43%) subjects. Advanced age, male sex, and current smoking status were statistically significant with regards to AN and HRA. A lower incidence of AN was observed in subjects taking aspirin. In the decision tree model, the location, shape, and size of the polyp, and sex of the subject were key predictors of the pathologic type. A weak but significant association was observed between the prediction of the final tree and the histological grouping (Kendall's tau-c = 0.142, p < 0001).

Conclusions: Advanced neoplasia and HRA can be predicted using several individual characteristics and decision tree models.

Distinguishing colorectal adenoma from hyperplastic polyp by WNT2 expression

BACKGROUND

Colorectal adenoma (CRA) is a classical premalignant lesion, with high incidence and mainly coexisting with hyperplastic polyp (HPP). Hence, this study aimed to distinguish CRA from HPP by molecular expression profiling and advance the prevention of CRA and its malignance.

METHODS

CRA and paired HPP biopsies were collected by endoscopy. Through RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq), the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained. Functional enrichment analysis was performed based on the DEGs. The STRING database and Cytoscape were used to construct the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network and perform module analysis. Hub genes were validated by real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry. The ROC curve was drawn to establish the specificity of the hub genes.

RESULTS

485 significant DEGs were identified including 133 up-regulated and 352 down-regulated. The top 10 up-regulated genes were DLX5, MMP10, TAC1, ACAN, TAS2R38, WNT2, PHYHIPL, DKK4, DUSP27, and ABCA12. The top 10 down-regulated genes were SFRP2, CHRDL1, KBTBD12, RERGL, DPP10, CLCA4, GREM2, TMIGD1, FEV, and OTOP3. Wnt signaling pathway and extracellular matrix (ECM) were up-regulated in CRA. Three hub genes including WNT2, WNT5A, and SFRP1 were filtered out via Cytoscape. Further RT-qPCR and immunohistochemistry confirmed that WNT2 was highly expressed in CRA. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) at 0.98 indicated the expression level of WNT2 as a candidate to differ CRA from HPP.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests Wnt signaling pathway and ECM are enriched in CRA, and WNT2 may be used as a novel biomarker for distinguishing CRA from HPP and preventing the malignance of CRA.

[Position paper on endoscopic reporting in IBD]

The complete and reliable documentation of endoscopic findings make up the crucial foundation for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis. These findings are, on the one hand, a prerequisite for therapeutic decisions and, on the other hand, important as a tool for assessing the response to ongoing treatments. Endoscopic reports should, therefore, be recorded according to standardized criteria to ensure that the findings of different endoscopists can be adequately compared and that changes in the course of the disease can be traced back. In consideration of these necessities, fifteen members of the Imaging Working Group of the German Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen have created a position paper proposing a structure and specifications for the documentation of endoscopic exams. In addition to the formal report structure, the recommendations address a large number of attributes of acute and chronic inflammatory alterations as well as endoscopically detectable complications, which are explained in detail and illustrated using exemplary images. In addition, more frequently used endoscopic activity indices are presented and their use in everyday clinical practice is discussed.

The conversion factor for predicting adenoma detection rate from polyp detection rate varies according to colonoscopy indication and patient sex

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the primary quality indicator for colonoscopies. The polyp detection rate (PDR) is available from administrative data and does not depend on histology verification. The correlation between PDR and ADR and the ADR/PDR conversion factor in preventive colonoscopies were evaluated. In the prospective study, asymptomatic individuals aged 45-75 years with preventive colonoscopy in 2012-2016 were included. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess PDR/ADR for each endoscopist. Conversion factor predicting ADR from PDR was obtained by linear regression and subsequently compared with adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient. One thousand six hundred fourteen preventive colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists in 8 screening colonoscopy centres in the Czech Republic were analysed. Correlation between PDR and ADR in all preventive colonoscopies was high and statistically significant (Rs 0.82; P < 0.001). There was a strong correlation between PDR and ADR in men (Rs 0.74; P = 0.002) and in screening colonoscopies (Rs 0.85; P < 0.001). The conversion factor to convert ADR from PDR was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies, 0.76 in FOBT+ colonoscopies and 0.67 in screening colonoscopies. ADR may be replaced by PDR in the assessment of colonoscopy quality. The value of the conversion factor varies according to colonoscopy indication and gender of examined individuals; in this Czech study, it was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies. The minimum requested ADR of 25 % corresponds to a PDR of 35 %, when converted with the appropriate conversion factor.

Implementation of colonoscopy quality monitoring in a Belgian university hospital with integrated computer-based extraction of adenoma detection rate

Background and study aims  Quality in colonoscopy has been promoted in last decade with definition of different quality indicators (QI) as benchmarks. Currently, automatized monitoring systems are lacking, especially for merging pathologic and endoscopic data, which limits quality monitoring implementation in daily practice. We describe an adapted endoscopy reporting system that allows continuous QI recording, with automatic pathological data inclusion. Material and methods  We locally adapted a reporting system for colonoscopy by adding and structuring in a dedicated tab selected key QI. Endoscopic data from a reporting system and pathological results were extracted and merged in a separate database. During the initial period of use, performing physicians were encouraged to complete the dedicated tab on a voluntary basis. In a second stage, completing of the tab was made mandatory. The completeness of QI recording was evaluated across both periods. Performance measures for all endoscopists were compared to global results for the department and published targets. Results  During the second semester of 2017, a total of 1827 colonoscopies were performed with a QI tab completed in 100 % of cases. Among key QI, the cecal intubation rate was 93.8 %, the rate of colonoscopies with adequate preparation was 90.7 %, and the adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % considering all colonoscopies, irrespective of indication; 28.8 % considering screening procedures; and 36.6 % in colonoscopies performed in people older than age 50 years. Conclusion  This study shows that quality monitoring for colonoscopy can be easily implemented with limited human resources by adapting a reporting system and linking it to a pathology database.

Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND & GOALS

We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.

Polyp Detection Rate Correlates Strongly with Adenoma Detection Rate in Trainee Endoscopists

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a widely accepted quality benchmark for screening colonoscopy but can be burdensome to calculate. Previous studies have shown good correlation between polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, but this has not been validated in trainees. Additionally, the correlation between PDR and detection rates for sessile serrated polyps (SSPDR) and advanced neoplasia (ANDR) is not well studied.

AIMS

We investigated the relationship between PDR and ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR in trainees.

METHODS

We examined 1600 outpatient colonoscopies performed by 24 trainees at a VA hospital from 2014 to 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, year of fellowship, colonoscopy indication, and endoscopic and histologic findings. We calculated the overall ratios of PDR to ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR to assess the correlation between measured and calculated ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR, which is equivalent to the correlation between PDR and measured ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR.

RESULTS

The overall PDR, ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR were 72%, 52%, 2%, and 14%. PDR (48%) was highest in the left colon, while ADR (32%) and ANDR (7%) were highest in the right colon (p < 0.001 for all). The overall ADR/PDR, SSPDR/PDR, and ANDR/PDR ratios were 0.73, 0.03, and 0.20. Correlation between PDR and ADR was highly positive overall (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and stronger in the right (r = 0.91) and transverse (r = 0.94) colon than the left colon (r = 0.80). Correlation between PDR and overall SSPDR and ANDR were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

PDR can serve as a surrogate measure of ADR to monitor colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology fellowship.

Implementing visual cues to improve the efficacy of screening colonoscopy: exploiting the Hawthorne effect

Background:

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening. Adenoma detection rate and a withdrawal time of 6 min are quality metrics to measure the efficacy of colonoscopy in colon cancer screening. The aim of our study was to exploit the Hawthorne effect in an effort to ensure adherence to a minimum 6-min withdrawal time and subsequently increase adenoma detection rate.

Methods:

This was a retrospective single-center study where we reviewed the records of patients who underwent screening colonoscopy in 2015 and 2017. We divided our patient population into 2 groups. The first group of patients from 2015 underwent screening colonoscopy with no visual cues on the colonoscopy monitor. The second group of patients from 2017 had visual cues indicating withdrawal time on the colonoscopy monitor.

Results:

Screening colonoscopy had a statistically significantly higher adenoma detection rate when performed with visual cues compared to without visual cues (25.3% vs. 19.45, P=0.04). Polyp detection rate was also higher in the group where visual cueing was used (52.9% vs. 22.9%, P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in actual withdrawal time or cecal intubation rates.

Conclusions:

Visual cues indicating withdrawal time are a useful intervention that results in an increased adenoma detection rate. Given its practicality and cost effectiveness, we recommend universally implementing visual cues to ensure adherence to a minimum 6-min withdrawal time.

Colonoscopic techniques in polyp detection: An Egyptian study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is defined as the percentage of colonoscopies in which one or more polyps are detected, and has been shown to be highly correlated with the adenoma detection rate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the PDR at the Endoscopy Unit of the Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Egypt, through the i-SCAN, Endocuff, and underwater colonoscopy techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on 100 Egyptian subjects over 50 years of age. Their polyp detection rate was measured through 4 different colonoscopic techniques. An equal number of patients were divided into 4 groups: i-SCAN, Endocuff, underwater colonoscopy, and controls. The control group was examined using standard white light colonoscopy. The colonoscopy evaluation included the type of agent utilized for bowel preparation, preparation grade, and colonoscopy withdrawal time.

RESULTS

The general PDR was 48%. The i-SCAN technique had the highest rate (56%), followed by the underwater (52%) and the Endocuff (48%) techniques.

CONCLUSION

The i-SCAN and underwater colonoscopy techniques produced higher PDR than the Endocuff-assisted and standard techniques, but with no statistical significance.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Detection rates for adenomas, serrated polyps and clinically relevant serrated polyps can be easily estimated by individually calculated detection rate ratios

Background and aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality indicator for colonoscopy; however, it is cumbersome to obtain. We investigated if detection rates (DRs) for adenomas, serrated polyps (SPs) and clinically relevant SP (crSPDR) can be accurately estimated by individualized DR ratios (DRRs) in a multicenter primary colonoscopy screening cohort of average-risk individuals.Methods: DRRs were calculated by dividing DRs for a certain polyp entity by polyp detection rate (PDR) for each endoscopist individually on the basis of his/her first 50 (DRR₅₀) and 100 (DRR₁₀₀) consecutive colonoscopies. DRs were estimated for each endoscopist by multiplying his/her DRR for a certain polyp entity with his/her PDR of subsequent colonoscopies in groups of 50 (DRR₅₀) and 100 (DRR₁₀₀) consecutive colonoscopies. Estimated and actual DRs were compared.Results: Estimated DRs showed a strong correlation with actual DRs for adenomas (r = 0.86 and 0.87; each p < .001), SPs (r = 0.85 and 0.91; each p < .001) and crSPs (r = 0.82 and 0.86; each p < .001) using DRRs derived from first 50 and 100 consecutive colonoscopies. Corresponding root mean square error (RMSE) between individual estimated and actual DRs using DRR₅₀ and DRR₁₀₀ was 5.3(±4.6)% and 4.5(±4.8)% for adenomas, 5.2(±4.1)% and 3.9(±2.8)% for SP, 3.1(±3.1)% and 2.8(±2.5)% for crSP, respectively. RMSE was not significantly different between DRR₅₀ and DRR₁₀₀ for ADR (p = .445), SPDR (p = .178) and crSP (p = .544).Conclusions: DR for all relevant polyp entities can be accurately estimated by using individual DRRs. This approach may enable endoscopists to easily track their performance measures in daily routine.

Actual and estimated adenoma detection rates: a 2-year monocentric colonoscopic screening outcome in Shenzhen, China

Background and Aim

While adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric for screening colonoscopy, it remains difficult to be accessed due to the lack of integrated endoscopy and pathology databases. Hence, the use of an adenoma‐to‐polyp detection rate quotient and polyp detection rate (PDR) has been proposed to predict ADR. This study aimed to examine the usefulness of estimated ADR across different colonic segments in two age groups for Shenzhen people in China.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 7329 colonoscopy procedures performed by 12 endoscopists between January 2012 and February 2014. The PDR, actual ADR, and estimated ADR of the entire, proximal, and distal colon, and within each colonic segment, in two patient age groups: <50 and ≥50 years, were calculated for each endoscopist.

Results

The overall polyp and adenoma prevalence rates were 19.1 and 9.3%, respectively. The average age of adenoma‐positive patients was significantly higher than that of adenoma‐negative patients (54 ± 12.6 years vs 42.9 ± 13.2 years, respectively). A total of 1739 polyps were removed, among which 826 were adenomas. More adenomatous polyps were found in the proximal colon (60.4%, 341/565) than in the distal colon (40.9%, 472/1154). Overall, both actual and estimated ADR correlated strongly at the entire colon level and within most colonic segments, except for the cecum and rectum. In both age groups, these parameters correlated strongly within the traverse colon and descending colon.

Conclusion

Caution should be exercised when predicting ADR within the sigmoid colon and rectum.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate at endoscopy in a non-screening population

It is understood that colorectal adenomas progress to colonic adenocarcinoma. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) at endoscopy has been used as a key performance indicator at endoscopy and is inversely associated with diagnosis of interval colorectal cancer. As most endoscopy reporting systems do not routinely incorporate histological assessment, ADR reporting is a cumbersome task. Polyp Detection Rate (PDR) has therefore been adopted as a surrogate marker for ADR. A prospectively maintained database of colonoscopies performed between July 2015 and July 2017 was analysed. This was cross referenced with a histological database. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 24. Inferential procedures employed included the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and Binomial logistic regression. Of 2964 procedures performed by 8 endoscopists, overall PDR was 27% and ADR was 19%. The PDR, ADR, adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient (APDRQ) and estimated ADR (PDR x APDRQ group average = 0.72) was calculated for each individual. There was a strong positive linear correlation between PDR and ADR,r(8) = 0.734, p = 0.038 and between PDR and estimated ADR, r(8) = 0.998, p < 0.001. Adenoma detection rate strongly correlated with estimated ADR, r(8) = 0.720, p = 0.044. With the exclusion of a moderate outlier, these correlations increased in both strength and significance. There was a stronger correlation between PDR and ADR,r(7) = 0.921, p = 0.003 and between ADR and estimated ADR, r(7) = 0.928, p = 0.003.

Spectrum of Preneoplastic and Neoplastic lesions of intestine in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Karachi, Pakistan

Objectives

To present 7 years data mentioning the spectrum of preneoplastic & neoplastic cases of intestine received at Dow Diagnostic Research and Reference Laboratory.

Methods

All the cases of preneoplastic & neoplastic lesions of intestine received during 2009 - 2015 were reviewed. The data obtained were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis using SPSS version 22. Furthermore, the association of diagnosis was seen with various other variables including age, gender & site of the lesion. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

The total samples were 486, out of which 33 cases were of premalignant and 453 were of malignant lesions. Out of total 33 cases of premalignant lesions of intestine, it consisted adenomatous polyp = 39.4% (n=13), dysplasia = 36.4% (n=12) and adenoma = 24.2% (n=8). From the total of 453 cases diagnosed as malignant lesions; adenocarcinoma as Grade-I were 14.2% (n=64), Grade-II were 7.6% (n=260) and Grade-III were 22% (n=99). Squamous cell carcinoma Grade-I were 0.4% (n=2), Grade-II 1.6% (n=7) and Grade-III 0.9% (n=4). 2.4% (n=11) cases were of metastatic adoncarcinoma, 0.9% (n=4) were diagnosed as neuroendocrine tumors and 0.4% (n=2) as lymphoma. A significant association was seen between site of the tumor and diagnosis, rectum was the commonest site for adenocarcinomas (p=0.001). Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma was predominantly present in young age (p=0.001).

Conclusion

Colorectal carcinoma is on rise in Pakistan, predominantly in young males, and rectum being the commonest site. In our study, all the lesions showed male predominance with adenomatous polyp as the commonest premalignant lesion & Grade-II adenocarcinoma the most common malignancy of intestine.

Screening colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer incidence: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer screening options, but their relative effectiveness needs clarification. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer incidence.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study within the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were subjects age 70-85 years in the SEER-Medicare database diagnosed with CRC during 2004-2013. Up to 3 controls were matched to each case by birth year, sex, race, and SEER region. Receipt of screening colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a history of screening in cases vs. controls. We conducted secondary analyses by sex, race, endoscopist characteristics, and with varying timing and duration of the look-back period.

RESULTS

Receipt of screening colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 59% (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.39, 0.43) and 22% reduction (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.67, 0.92) in colorectal cancer incidence, respectively. Colonoscopy was associated with greater reduction in the distal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.20, 0.24) than proximal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.59, 0.66). Sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 52% reduction in distal colorectal cancer incidence (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.37, 0.63), but with no reduction in proximal colorectal cancer incidence. These associations were stronger in men than in women. No differences by race or endoscopist characteristics were observed.

CONCLUSION

Both screening colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy were associated with reductions in overall colorectal cancer incidence, with a greater magnitude of reduction observed with colonoscopy.

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.

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are both recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, but their relative effectiveness is unclear. We sought to evaluate the ability of each of these two modalities to reduce CRC mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Cases were persons aged 70-85 years who died of CRC and were matched to up to three non-CRC controls. Receipt of endoscopy was ascertained from Medicare claims and endoscopy indication assigned using a validated algorithm. Conditional logistic regression models were developed to estimate the association between screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and CRC mortality. We conducted secondary analyses by race, sex, and endoscopist characteristics, and with varying duration of the look-back period.

RESULTS

In the initial analysis using all available look-back years, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a 35% reduction in CRC mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.89), while screening colonoscopy was associated with a 74% reduction (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.23, 0.30). Sigmoidoscopy was not associated with any reduction in proximal CRC mortality. The association between colonoscopy and reduced CRC mortality was stronger in the distal than the proximal colon. Results were similar in analyses using a 5-year look-back period.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening colonoscopy was associated with greater reductions in CRC mortality than screening sigmoidoscopy, and with a greater reduction in the distal than the proximal colon. These results provide additional information on the relative benefits of screening for CRC with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.

Effect of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl on the overall quality of colonoscopy: a prospective and randomized study

INTRODUCTION

a prospective, randomized study was performed to assess the influence of conscious sedation on the overall quality of colonoscopy, simultaneously quantifying its effect on the scientific quality, perceived quality and patient safety.

METHODS

patients referred for a colonoscopy were included in the study and were randomized to receive or not receive sedation. Demographic data, indication for colonoscopy, cecal intubation, introduction and withdrawal time, resected adenomas and complications during the exploration were collected. Thirty days later, a satisfaction questionnaire was performed (GHAA 9-me) and patients were asked about complications after the examination.

RESULTS

a total of 5,328 patients were included, the average age was 62 ± 15.22 years, 47% were male, 3,734 were sedated and 1,594 were not sedated. The sedated patients had a shorter endoscope insertion time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.019), a higher rate of cecal intubations (96% vs 88%, p < 0.05), longer withdrawal time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.01) and higher adenoma detection rates (22% vs 17%, p < 0.05). The use of sedation reduced discomfort during and after the exploration, without increasing the complications. The satisfaction questionnaire score was higher (23.6 ± 1.5 vs 16.6 ± 4.8, p < 0.001) in the sedated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

superficial sedation not only reduces patient discomfort but also improves the overall quality of the colonoscopy. Therefore, we must consider the use of sedation as an essential part of colonoscopy.

Relationship between the endoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma/polyp detection rate in individual colonic segments: a KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Appropriate colonoscopy withdrawal times for individual colonic segments are not well known. The relationship between withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR)/polyp detection rate (PDR) in individual colonic segments was examined in this study.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study involving 724 patients who underwent colonoscopy screening or surveillance colonoscopy from October 2015 to February 2017 at 10 university hospitals.

RESULTS

In the right side of the colon, the ADR (33.2% vs 13.7%, P < .001), PDR, serrated polyp detection rate, and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) were significantly higher when the colonoscopy withdrawal time was ≥2 minutes compared with <2 minutes. When the withdrawal time was ≥4 minutes in the proximal colon and ≥3 minutes in the left segment of the colon, the ADR, PDR, and APC were significantly higher compared with withdrawal times of <4 minutes and <3 minutes, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that the ADR was significantly associated with withdrawal times of ≥2 minutes in the right side of the colon (odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-5.15; P < .001), ≥4 minutes in the proximal colon (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 3.15-6.36; P < .001), and ≥3 minutes in the left segment of the colon (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.74-4.91; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The PDR and ADR appeared to be significantly increased when the withdrawal time was ≥2 minutes in the right-sided colon segment, ≥4 minutes in the proximal colon, and ≥3 minutes in the left-sided colon segment compared with shorter withdrawal times.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Impact of Changeover to Newer Endoscopic Systems on Quality and Efficiency of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Equipment or Endoscopist

GOALS

The goal of this study is to assess whether changeover to newer endoscopic systems impacts quality or efficiency, and quantify the relation between increased withdrawal time and detection rates of sessile serrated polyps (SSPDR) and adenomas (ADR) in real-world practice.

STUDY

Beginning 2 months after new endoscopic systems were implemented at 2 endoscopy units, we included all outpatients undergoing screening/surveillance colonoscopy for 4 months. Outpatients during the same 4-month period 1 year earlier comprised the control group. Quality endpoints included ADR, advanced ADR, SSPDR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time. The efficiency endpoint was procedure time. Statistical adjustment for potential confounding factors was performed with multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Significant increases occurred in postchangeover (N=1122) versus prechangeover (N=1131) procedure time (difference=2.6 minutes; 1.6 to 3.6) and withdrawal time (difference=1.6 minutes; 0.8 to 2.5). Significant increases also occurred in ADR [435 (39%) vs. 380 (34%)], advanced ADR [82 (7%) vs. 50 (4%)], and PDR [664 (59%) vs. 611 (54%)], but these differences lost significance when withdrawal time was added to the multivariable model. For every minute increase in withdrawal time a significant increase was seen in ADR (OR=1.09; 1.08 to 1.11), advanced ADR (OR=1.10; 1.08 to 1.13), SSPDR (OR=1.07; 1.06 to 1.09), and PDR (OR=1.16; 1.14 to 1.18).

CONCLUSIONS

After changeover to newer endoscopy systems withdrawal times lengthened, resulting in increased procedure time, ADR, and advanced ADR. Regardless of endoscopic system, lengthening withdrawal time increased SSPDR, ADR, and advanced ADR: odds of detection increased 7% to 10% with every additional minute of withdrawal time. Greater attention to withdrawal time and endoscopist examination may be more productive than upgrading endoscopic systems.

Prevalence and characteristics of colonic adenoma in mainland China

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To investigate the prevalence and characteristics of colonic adenoma and advanced colonic adenoma in a large group of patients in mainland China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study on patients who had undergone colonoscopy examination in a university hospital in mainland China. Colonic adenomas and advanced adenomas were recorded.

RESULTS

The prevalence of polyps, adenoma, and advanced adenoma was 23.9%, 13.3%, and 3.5%, respectively. Age and sex were independent risk factors for the prevalence of adenoma and advanced adenoma. Polyp size was associated with an increased risk of both colonic adenoma (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.44-1.56) and advanced adenoma (OR 2.78, 95% CI 2.55-3.03) after sex and age adjustment. Proximal colon polyps were a risk factor for adenoma (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.66) and also associated with a significant reduction (44%) in risk of advanced adenoma (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.86) compared to distal colon adenoma after sex and age adjustment. A screening indication was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the odds of prevalence of adenoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-0.99) and advanced adenoma (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88) compared to a no-screening indication.

CONCLUSION

The overall prevalence of adenoma was low in mainland China. It exhibited a varied pattern with respect to age and sex. Polyp size was a risk factor for both colonic adenoma and its transition to advanced adenoma. Proximal colon polyps were a risk factor for adenoma, but a protective factor for advanced adenoma compared to distal colon adenoma.

Variable Endoscopist performance in proximal and distal adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) is a validated colonoscopy quality indicator. In addition to overall ADR, Distal and Proximal Adenoma Detection Rates may provide important colonoscopy quality information. The goal of this study is to determine the association between distal and proximal adenoma detection (AD) and to identify factors contributing to overall, distal, and proximal AD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with a noted family history of CRC or positive fecal occult blood test who underwent a screening colonoscopy at a regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening center between May 2009 and December 2011. Data regarding patient demographics, procedure details, endoscopist characteristics and polyp histology were captured. The main outcomes measured were overall, distal, and proximal AD.

RESULTS

1907 patients were included. The median age was 60 years and 42% were male. Endoscopist median overall ADR was 25% (30% male, 21% female). Endoscopist distal ADR was only modestly associated with their proximal ADR (Spearman Rank: 0.51 p = 0.11). Highest overall ADR (29 to 45%) was found for endoscopists whose distal and proximal ADRs were above the group median. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with overall, distal, and proximal AD included age, sex, and endoscopist practicing experience.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of distal and proximal ADRs, in addition to overall ADR, in colonoscopy quality assessment provides the more accurate feedback on endoscopist performance.

Colonic stasis and chronic constipation: Demystifying proposed risk factors for colon polyp formation in a spinal cord injury veteran population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) suffer significant morbidity from neurogenic bowel. Chronic constipation has long-been a proposed risk factor for polyp development. We performed a retrospective cohort study in veterans with SCI to assess polyp presence in the setting of colonic stasis.

METHODS

All consecutive patients at the James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Hospital with SCI and neurogenic bowel who completed screening colonoscopy between January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2013 were included. Colonoscopies were excluded if they were aborted, not completed to the cecum, of less than adequate preparation, or if polypectomy was precluded. Patient data included level, duration, and completeness of SCI. Polyp data included number, location, and histology.

RESULTS

325 patients ultimately met inclusion criteria. Most were male (96%). The average age at screening colonoscopy was 62.8 years. The majority of patients had injury to the cervical spine (41.5%). Colon polyps were detected in 130 patients (40%). Adenomatous change was seen in 95 (73%) of these patients. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) across all patients was 29.2%. Polyp presence and ADR demonstrated no statistically significant correlation with level, degree, or duration of SCI. Only patient age at time of screening colonoscopy had a significant correlation with polyp and adenoma presence (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SCI had no statistically significant correlation with polyp or adenoma presence. The ADR in our veteran SCI population with chronic constipation is comparable with that reported in the general population.

Polyp detection rate may predict adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is defined as the number of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma, expressed as the ratio of the total number of colonoscopies performed. Recently, an application of a conversion factor to estimate the ADR from the polyp detection rate (PDR) was described.

AIM

In this meta-analysis, we examined the correlation between ADR and PDR in the published studies and assessed the relative ratio of these ratios for a better and more accurate estimation.

METHODS

English Medical literature searches were performed for 'PDR' AND 'ADR'. A meta-analysis was carried out for papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria using comprehensive meta-analysis software.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies and 42 sets of data, including 31 623 patients, from nine countries published till 31 August 2017, were found. Funnel plot did not indicate a significant publication bias. relative ratio for ADR calculated from PDR was 0.688, 95% confidence intervals: 0.680-0.695, P value of less than 0.0001 in the meta-analysis fixed model. Heterogeneity (the proportion of inconsistency in individual studies) between studies was significant, with Q=492.753, d.f. (Q) 41, P<0.0001, and I 91.679.

CONCLUSION

We found the ratio of 0.688 can be used to calculate ADR from PDR for the individual endoscopist or for a group of endoscopists before receiving the formal results from the pathology department.

Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients who receive a colonoscopy from a physician with a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are at higher risk of subsequent colorectal cancer. It is unclear what drives the variation across physicians in ADR. We describe physician characteristics associated with higher ADR.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study a natural language processing system was used to analyze all outpatient colonoscopy examinations and their associated pathology reports from October 2013 to September 2015 for adults age 40 years and older across physicians from 4 diverse health systems. Physician performance on ADR was risk adjusted for differences in patient population and procedure indication. Our sample included 201 physicians performing at least 30 colonoscopy examinations during the study period, totaling 104,618 colonoscopy examinations.

RESULTS

The mean ADR was 33.2% (range, 6.3%-58.7%). Higher ADR was seen among female physicians (4.2 percentage points higher than men, P = .020), gastroenterologists (9.4 percentage points higher than nongastroenterologists, P < .001), and physicians with ≤9 years since their residency completion (6.0 percentage points higher than physicians who have had 27-51 years of practice, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists, female physicians, and more recently trained physicians had higher performance in adenoma detection.

Variation in Pathologist Classification of Colorectal Adenomas and Serrated Polyps

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopist quality measures such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rates (SPDRs) depend on pathologist classification of histology. Although variation in pathologic interpretation is recognized, we add to the literature by quantifying the impact of pathologic variability on endoscopist performance.

METHODS

We used natural language processing to abstract relevant data from colonoscopy and related pathology reports performed over 2 years at four clinical sites. We quantified each pathologist's likelihood of classifying polyp specimens as adenomas or serrated polyps. We estimated the impact on endoscopists' ADR and SPDR of sending their specimens to pathologists with higher or lower classification rates.

RESULTS

We observed 85,526 colonoscopies performed by 119 endoscopists; 50,453 had a polyp specimen, which were analyzed by 48 pathologists. There was greater variation across pathologists in classification of serrated polyps than in classification of adenomas. We estimate the endoscopist's average SPDR would be 0.5% if all their specimens were analyzed by the pathologist in our sample with the lowest classification rate and 12.0% if all their specimens were analyzed by the pathologist with the highest classification rate. In contrast, the endoscopist's average ADR would be 28.5% and 42.4% if their specimens were analyzed by the pathologist with lowest and highest classification rate, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in pathologic interpretation, which more substantially affects endoscopist SPDR than ADR.

Detection rate and proximal shift tendency of adenomas and serrated polyps: a retrospective study of 62,560 colonoscopies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to estimate the detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps and to identify proximalization and associate risk factors in patients from Southern China.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy from 2004 to 2013 in Guangzhou were included. The proportions of proximal adenomas to advanced adenomas and serrated polyps were compared and potential predictors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Colonoscopies (n = 62,560) were performed, and 11,427 patients were diagnosed with polyps. Detection rates for adenomas, hyperplastic polyps, and serrated adenomas were 12.0, 2.5, and 0.2 patients per 100 colonoscopies. When comparing the 1st (2004-2008) to the 2nd period (2009-2013), adenoma and serrated polyp detection in proximal and distal colon both increased significantly (proximal colon [adenoma 3.9 vs. 6.1 patients/100 colonoscopies, P < 0.001; serrated polyp 0.4 vs. 1.1 patients/100 colonoscopies, P < 0.001]; distal colon [adenoma 6.6 vs. 7.2 patients/100 colonoscopies, P = 0.003; serrated polyp 1.2 vs. 2.4 patients/100 colonoscopies, P < 0.001]). Advanced adenoma detection increased over these two periods only in proximal colon (1st vs. 2nd period: 1.5 vs. 2.4 patients/100 colonoscopies, P < 0.001), not the distal colon (P = 0.114). Multivariate analyses showed that diagnostic period was an independent predictor for adenoma proximalization (OR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.25-1.48, P < 0.001), but not for advanced adenomas (P = 0.117) or serrated polyps (P = 0.928).

CONCLUSIONS

Adenomas and serrated polyps were increasingly detected throughout the colon, whereas advanced adenomas were only in proximal colon. A proximal shift tendency detected by colonoscopy was observed for adenomas, but not advanced adenomas or serrated polyps, in Southern China. The screening for proximal polyps should be emphasized and colonoscopy might be a preferred initial screening tool.

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.

Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy according to Indication

Background

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Measurement of biological age may help to assess the risk of colorectal adenoma in screening colonoscopy

AIM

To investigate the clinical utility of biological age (BA) measurement in screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal adenomas in the average-risk population.

METHODS

A consecutive series of asymptomatic subjects aged ≥ 30 years who underwent colonoscopy in routine check-ups were enrolled. Colorectal adenoma was classified according to size, number, and location. BAs were calculated using the MEDIAGE^TM Biological Age Measurement System.

RESULTS

A total of 2696 subjects were investigated (1876 men and 820 women). The mean chronological age (CA) was 46.0 years and the mean BA was 44.7 years. Metabolic syndrome (MS) was diagnosed in 218 subjects (8.1%). The prevalence of overall colorectal adenoma was 23.1% (622/2,696). When the subjects were divided into four groups based on BA (≤ 39 years; 40-49 years; 50-59 years; ≥ 60 years), the prevalence of colorectal adenoma was increased as BA increased (P < 0.001). Colorectal adenoma located in the proximal colon was more prevalent in the BA-dominant group (BA-CA ≥ 5 years) than the CA-dominant group (CA-BA ≥ 5 years) (P = 0.034). When the subjects were categorized into four groups according to MS and age gap between BA and CA, the incidence of colorectal adenoma increased with MS and BA-dominance (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of BA may help to assess the risk of colorectal adenoma in screening colonoscopy.

Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.

METHODS

In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.

RESULTS

2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Interval colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 3% to 8% of all cases of CRC in the United States. Data on interval CRC by race/ethnicity are scant.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether risk for interval CRC among Medicare patients differs by race/ethnicity and whether this potential variation is accounted for by differences in the quality of colonoscopy, as measured by physicians' polyp detection rate (PDR).

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Medicare program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 66 to 75 years who received colonoscopy between 2002 and 2011 and were followed through 2013.

MEASUREMENTS

Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models were used to estimate cumulative probabilities and hazard ratios (HRs) of interval CRC, defined as a CRC diagnosis 6 to 59 months after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 2735 cases of interval CRC identified over 235 146 person-years of follow-up. A higher proportion of black persons (52.8%) than white persons (46.2%) received colonoscopy from physicians with a lower PDR. This rate was significantly associated with interval CRC risk. The probability of interval CRC by the end of follow-up was 7.1% in black persons and 5.8% in white persons. Compared with white persons, black persons had significantly higher risk for interval CRC (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.51]); the disparity was more pronounced for cancer of the rectum (HR, 1.70 [CI, 1.25 to 2.31]) and distal colon (HR, 1.45 [CI, 1.00 to 2.11]) than for cancer of the proximal colon (HR, 1.17 [CI, 0.96 to 1.42]). Adjustment for PDR did not alter HRs by race/ethnicity, but differences between black persons and white persons were greater among physicians with higher PDRs.

LIMITATION

Colonoscopy and polypectomy were identified by using billing codes.

CONCLUSION

Among elderly Medicare enrollees, the risk for interval CRC was higher in black persons than in white persons; the difference was more pronounced for cancer of the distal colon and rectum and for physicians with higher PDRs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American Cancer Society.

Multiple, zonal and multi-zone adenoma detection rates according to quality of cleansing during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The safety and diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy depend on the quality of colon cleansing. The adenoma detection rate is usually used as a quality measurement score.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to introduce and evaluate three new parameters to determine polyps and adenomas segmental localization and their distribution in association with different bowel preparation levels during colonoscopy. We introduce the multiple adenoma detection rate (the percentage of patients with >2 adenomas diagnosed during colonoscopy), the zonal adenoma detection rate (the percentage of patients with >2 adenomas diagnosed during colonoscopy in different colon areas (rectum, sigmoid, descending, transverse, ascending and cecum colon)), and multi-zone adenoma detection rate (the percentage of patients with >2 adenomas diagnosed during colonoscopy in different colon areas with at least a segment between them with or without lesions (i.e. rectum and descending colon with or without lesions in the sigmoid)).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled outpatients who underwent colonoscopy from January 2013 to October 2014. The bowel preparation quality, according to the Aronchick modified scale, number and location of lesions, Paris classification and histology, were recorded. The multiple adenoma/polyp detection rate, zonal adenoma/polyp detection rate, and multi-zone adenoma/polyp detection rate were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 519 consecutive patients (266/253 M/F; mean age 55.3 ± 12.8 years) were enrolled. The adenoma and polyp detection rates were 21% and 35%, respectively. Multiple adenomas were detected in 28 patients. Adenoma and polyp detection rate and new parameters were statistically significantly higher in the optimal as compared with the adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

An optimal level of bowel preparation was strongly associated not only with a higher adenoma detection rate, but also with a higher chance of detecting multiple clinically relevant lesions in adjacent or discrete segments of the colon.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.