Editorial: On the Quality of Quality Metrics: Rethinking What Defines a Good Colonoscopy

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.

Lower Adenoma Miss Rate of Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy vs Routine White-Light Colonoscopy in a Prospective Tandem Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Up to 30% of adenomas might be missed during screening colonoscopy-these could be polyps that appear on-screen but are not recognized by endoscopists or polyps that are in locations that do not appear on the screen at all. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems, based on deep learning, might reduce rates of missed adenomas by displaying visual alerts that identify precancerous polyps on the endoscopy monitor in real time. We compared adenoma miss rates of CADe colonoscopy vs routine white-light colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of patients, 18-75 years old, referred for diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopies at a single endoscopy center of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from June 3, 2019 through September 24, 2019. Same day, tandem colonoscopies were performed for each participant by the same endoscopist. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received either CADe colonoscopy (n=184) or routine colonoscopy (n=185) first, followed immediately by the other procedure. Endoscopists were blinded to the group each patient was assigned to until immediately before the start of each colonoscopy. Polyps that were missed by the CADe system but detected by endoscopists were classified as missed polyps. False polyps were those continuously traced by the CADe system but then determined not to be polyps by the endoscopists. The primary endpoint was adenoma miss rate, which was defined as the number of adenomas detected in the second-pass colonoscopy divided by the total number of adenomas detected in both passes.

RESULTS

The adenoma miss rate was significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy (13.89%; 95% CI, 8.24%-19.54%) than with routine colonoscopy (40.00%; 95% CI, 31.23%-48.77%, P<.0001). The polyp miss rate was significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy (12.98%; 95% CI, 9.08%-16.88%) than with routine colonoscopy (45.90%; 95% CI, 39.65%-52.15%) (P<.0001). Adenoma miss rates in ascending, transverse, and descending colon were significantly lower with CADe colonoscopy than with routine colonoscopy (ascending colon 6.67% vs 39.13%; P=.0095; transverse colon 16.33% vs 45.16%; P=.0065; and descending colon 12.50% vs 40.91%, P=.0364).

CONCLUSIONS

CADe colonoscopy reduced the overall miss rate of adenomas by endoscopists using white-light endoscopy. Routine use of CADe might reduce the incidence of interval colon cancers. chictr.org.cn study no: ChiCTR1900023086.

Adenoma miss rate of polypectomy-referring hospitals is high in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We evaluated the miss rates of polyps, adenomas, and advanced neoplasia of polypectomy-referring hospitals and risk factors for missed adenomas.

METHODS

We compared medical records and electronic images of initial colonoscopies from polypectomy-referring hospitals with those of corresponding therapeutic colonoscopies from Seoul St. Mary's Hospital obtained from May 2014 to February 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients (56.6 ± 12.1 years, 37 females) were included. The mean number of polyps and adenomas detected on initial colonoscopy was 2.4 ± 1.7 and 1.7 ± 1.4, respectively. The mean number of additionally detected polyps and adenomas per patient during therapeutic colonoscopy was 1.4 ± 1.8 and 1.0 ± 1.5, respectively. Pooled miss rate for polyps, adenomas, and advanced neoplasia was 36%, 37%, and 11%, respectively. Pooled miss rate for adenomas was significantly higher for right-sided, non-pedunculated, and small (< 1 cm) adenomas (p = 0.031, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively). The miss rate of polyps, adenomas, and advanced neoplasia per patient was 60%, 49%, and 7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed age and number of adenoma on initial colonoscopy were significantly related with risk for adenoma-missing (p = 0.005 and p = 0.023, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Among patients referred for polypectomy, adenoma is missed in one of two patients and advanced neoplasm is missed in one of 13. Patients with advanced age or multiple adenoma on initial colonoscopy have a higher possibility of missed adenoma. Total colon exploration should be performed carefully during therapeutic colonoscopy.

Enhanced Patient Education for Colonic Polyp and Adenoma Detection: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

To improve patients’ comprehension of bowel preparation instructions before colonoscopy, enhanced patient education (EPE) such as cartoon pictures or other visual aids, phone calls, mobile apps, multimedia education and social media apps have been proposed. However, it is uncertain whether EPE can increase the detection rate of colonic polyps and adenomas.

Objective

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EPE in detecting colonic polyps and adenomas.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to June 2019 for the identification of trials comparing the EPE with standard patient education for outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. We used a random effects model to calculate summary estimates of the polyp detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), advanced adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one advanced adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one sessile serrated adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), cancer detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one cancer divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), or adenoma detection rate - plus (defined as the number of additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy). Moreover, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine the robustness of summary estimates of all primary outcomes.

Results

We included 10 randomized controlled trials enrolling 4560 participants for analysis. The meta-analysis suggested that EPE was associated with an increased polyp detection rate (9 trials; 3781 participants; risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35; P<.05; I²=42%) and adenoma detection rate (5 trials; 2133 participants; RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.64; P<.001; I2=0%), which were established by TSA. Pooled result from the inverse-variance model illustrated an increase in the sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (3 trials; 1248 participants; odds ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.22-2.53; P<.05; I²=0%). One trial suggested an increase in the adenoma detection rate - plus (RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.91-6.61; P<.001). Pooled estimates from 3 (1649 participants) and 2 trials (1375 participants) generated no evidence of statistical difference for the advanced adenoma detection rate and cancer detection rate, respectively.

Conclusions

The current evidence indicates that EPE should be recommended to instruct bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy because it can increase the polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate. However, further trials are warranted to determine the efficacy of EPE for advanced adenoma detection rate, adenoma detection rate - plus, and cancer detection rate because of limited data.

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.).

Is whole-colon investigation by colonoscopy, computerised tomography colonography or barium enema necessary for all patients with colorectal cancer symptoms, and for which patients would flexible sigmoidoscopy suffice? A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

For patients referred to hospital with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), it is current standard clinical practice to conduct an examination of the whole colon and rectum. However, studies have shown that an examination of the distal colorectum using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) can be a safe and clinically effective investigation for some patients. These findings require validation in a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the links between patient symptoms at presentation and CRC risk by subsite, and to provide evidence of whether or not FS is an effective alternative to whole-colon investigation (WCI) in patients whose symptoms do not suggest proximal or obstructive disease.

DESIGN

A multicentre retrospective study using data collected prospectively from two randomised controlled trials. Additional data were collected from trial diagnostic procedure reports and hospital records. CRC diagnoses within 3 years of referral were sourced from hospital records and national cancer registries via the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

SETTING

Participants were recruited to the two randomised controlled trials from 21 NHS hospitals in England between 2004 and 2007.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged ≥ 55 years referred to secondary care for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of CRC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Diagnostic yield of CRC at distal (to the splenic flexure) and proximal subsites by symptoms/clinical signs at presentation.

RESULTS

The data set for analysis comprised 7380 patients, of whom 59% were women (median age 69 years, interquartile range 62-76 years). Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most frequently presenting symptom (73%), followed by rectal bleeding (38%) and abdominal pain (29%); 26% of patients had anaemia. CRC was diagnosed in 551 patients (7.5%): 424 (77%) patients with distal CRC, 122 (22%) patients with cancer proximal to the descending colon and five patients with both proximal and distal CRC. Proximal cancer was diagnosed in 96 out of 2021 (4.8%) patients with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. The yield of proximal cancer in patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass who presented with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom was low (0.5%). These low-risk groups for proximal cancer accounted for 41% (3032/7380) of the cohort; only three proximal cancers were diagnosed in 814 low-risk patients examined by FS (diagnostic yield 0.4%).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation to this study is that changes to practice since the trial ended, such as new referral guidelines and improvements in endoscopy quality, potentially weaken the generalisability of our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom profiles can be used to determine whether or not WCI is necessary. Most proximal cancers were diagnosed in patients who presented with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. In patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass, proximal cancer diagnoses were rare in those with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom. FS alone should be a safe and clinically effective investigation in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of symptom-based tailoring of diagnostic investigations for CRC is recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Quality measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy: the current state

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the current state of endoscopic quality measurement and use of measures in enhancing the value of endoscopic services.

RECENT FINDINGS

Initially, quality measurement of endoscopic procedures was claims based or included small unit or practice-specific efforts. Now we have a mature national registry and large electronic medical or procedural records that are designed to yield valuable data relevant to quality measurement.

SUMMARY

With the advent of better measures, we are beginning to understand that initial process and surrogate outcome measures (adenoma detection rate) can be improved to provide a better reflection of endoscopic quality. Importantly, however, even measures currently in use relate to important patient outcomes such as missed colon cancers. At a federal level, older cumbersome pay-for-performance initiatives have been combined into a new overarching program named the quality payment program within the centers for medicare and medicaid services. This program is an additional step toward furthering the progress from volume-to-value-based reimbursement. The legislation mandating the movement toward outcomes-linked (value) reimbursement is the medicare access and children's health insurance program reauthorization act, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and will not be walked back by alterations of the affordable care act. Increasing portions of medicare reimbursement (and likely commercial to follow) will be linked to quality metrics, so familiarity with the underlying process and rationale will be important for all proceduralists.

Risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer due to incomplete adenoma resection: A nationwide, population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Most post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PC-CRCs) are thought to develop from missed or incompletely resected adenomas.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the incidence rate of PC-CRC overall and per colorectal segment, as a proxy for PC-CRC due to incomplete adenoma resection, and to identify adenoma characteristics associated with these PC-CRCs.

METHODS

We performed a nationwide, population-based cohort study, including all patients with a first colorectal adenoma between 2000-2010 in the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Outcomes were the incidence rate of PC-CRC overall and of PC-CRC in the same colorectal segment, occurring between six months and five years after adenoma resection. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to identify factors associated with PC-CRCs in the same segment.

RESULTS

We included 107,744 patients (mean age 63.4 years; 53.6% male). PC-CRC was detected in 1031 patients (0.96%) with an incidence rate of 1.88 per 1000 person years. PC-CRC in the same segment was found in 323 of 133,519 adenomas (0.24%) with an incidence rate of 0.56 per 1000 years of follow-up. High-grade dysplasia (hazard ratio (HR) 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99-3.25) and both villous (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.79-3.87) and tubulovillous histology (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.43-2.27) were risk factors for PC-CRC in the same segment.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of PC-CRCs are found in the same colorectal segment after adenoma resection and could therefore be a consequence of incomplete adenoma resection, occurring in one in 400 adenomas. The risk of PC-CRC in the same segment is increased in adenomas with high-grade dysplasia or (tubulo)villous histology.