AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review

Sessile serrated lesion prevalence and factors associated with their detection: a post-hoc analysis of a multinational randomized controlled trial from Asia

BACKGROUND

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Data on the prevalence of SSLs in Asia are limited. We performed this study to estimate the prevalence of SSLs in Asia and to explore endoscopic factors that are associated with SSL detection.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial from four Asian countries/regions that compared adenoma detection rates using linked-color imaging (LCI) and white-light imaging. Colonoscopies were performed in an average-risk population for screening, diagnostic examination, or polyp surveillance. Patients with SSLs were compared against those without SSLs to evaluate for possible predictors of SSL detection using Firth's logistic regression.

RESULTS

2898 participants (mean age 64.5 years) were included in the analysis. The estimated prevalence of SSLs was 4.0% (95%CI 3.4%-4.8%), with no sex or age group differences. On multivariable analysis, use of LCI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.63, 95%CI 1.10-2.41), experienced endoscopists (aOR 1.94, 95%CI 1.25-3.00), use of transparent cap (aOR 1.75, 95%CI 1.09-2.81), and longer withdrawal time (aOR 1.06, 95%CI 1.03-1.10) were independently associated with SSL detection. Synchronous adenoma detection (aOR 1.89, 95%CI 1.20-2.99) was also predictive of SSL detection.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of SSLs in Asia is 4.0%. Use of LCI or a transparent cap, greater endoscopist experience, and longer withdrawal time were all associated with increased SSL detection.

Effect of an online educational module incorporating real-time feedback on accuracy of polyp sizing in trainees: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although polyp size dictates surveillance intervals, endoscopists often estimate polyp size inaccurately. We hypothesized that an intervention providing didactic instruction and real-time feedback could significantly improve polyp size classification.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of different components of an online educational module on polyp sizing. Participants were randomized to control (no video, no feedback), video only, feedback only, or video + feedback. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp size classification into clinically relevant categories (diminutive [1-5mm], small [6-9mm], large [≥10mm]). Secondary outcomes included accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm), learning curves, and directionality of inaccuracy (over- vs. underestimation).

RESULTS

36 trainees from five training programs provided 1360 polyp size assessments. The feedback only (80.1%, P=0.01) and video + feedback (78.9%, P=0.02) groups had higher accuracy of polyp size classification compared with controls (71.6%). There was no significant difference in accuracy between the video only group (74.4%) and controls (P=0.42). Groups receiving feedback had higher accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm) and higher peak learning curves. Polyps were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, and 29.3% of size inaccuracies impacted recommended surveillance intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our online educational module significantly improved polyp size classification. Real-time feedback appeared to be a critical component in improving accuracy. This scalable and no-cost educational module could significantly decrease under- and overutilization of colonoscopy, improving patient outcomes while increasing colonoscopy access.

Optimal timing of a colonoscopy screening schedule depends on adenoma detection, adenoma risk, adherence to screening and the screening objective: A microsimulation study

Colonoscopy-based screening provides protection against colorectal cancer (CRC), but the optimal starting age and time intervals of screening colonoscopies are unknown. We aimed to determine an optimal screening schedule for the US population and its dependencies on the objective of screening (life years gained or incidence, mortality, or cost reduction) and the setting in which screening is performed. We used our established open-source microsimulation model CMOST to calculate optimized colonoscopy schedules with one, two, three or four screening colonoscopies between 20 and 90 years of age. A single screening colonoscopy was most effective in reducing life years lost from CRC when performed at 55 years of age. Two, three and four screening colonoscopy schedules saved a maximum number of life years when performed between 49-64 years; 44-69 years; and 40-72 years; respectively. However, for maximum incidence and mortality reduction, screening colonoscopies needed to be scheduled 4-8 years later in life. The optimum was also influenced by adenoma detection efficiency with lower values for these parameters favoring a later starting age of screening. Low adherence to screening consistently favored a later start and an earlier end of screening. In a personalized approach, optimal screening would start earlier for high-risk patients and later for low-risk individuals. In conclusion, our microsimulation-based approach supports colonoscopy screening schedule between 45 and 75 years of age but the precise timing depends on the objective of screening, as well as assumptions regarding individual CRC risk, efficiency of adenoma detection during colonoscopy and adherence to screening.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

METHODS

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablet versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate for bowel preparation in older patients: prospective, multicenter, investigator single-blinded, randomized study

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablets (OST, which contains simethicone) and 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate (2 L-PEG/Asc) with a split-dosing regimen in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years who underwent scheduled colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter study was conducted between June 2022 and October 2023. Participants aged ≥ 70 years were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to the OST or 2 L-PEG/Asc groups.

RESULTS

In total, 254 patients were evaluated using a modified full analysis set. Successful overall bowel preparation was excellent and similar between the OST and 2 L-PEG/Asc groups for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (96.5% vs. 96.6%) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) (96.5% vs. 97.4%). The overall high-quality preparation rate was higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group (BBPS: 55.7% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001; HCS: 66.1% vs. 38.8%, P < 0.001). The overall adenoma detection rate (54.8% vs. 35.3, P = 0.003) was superior in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. Tolerability scores, including overall satisfaction, were generally higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. The incidence of major solicited adverse events was comparable between the two groups (55.7% vs. 68.1, P = 0.051), and there were no clinically significant changes in the serum laboratory profiles on the day of or 7 days after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

OST is an effective and safe low-volume agent for colonoscopy, with better tolerance than 2 L-PEG/Asc, in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years.

Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Linked color imaging improves colorectal lesion detection especially for low performance endoscopists: An international trial in Asia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Linked color imaging (LCI) is an image-enhanced endoscopy technique that accentuates the color difference between red and white, potentially improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, it remains unclear whether LCI performance in detecting colorectal lesions differs based on endoscopists' experience levels. We aimed to evaluate the differences in LCI efficacy based on the experience levels of endoscopists by conducting an exploratory analysis.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of an international randomized controlled trial comparing the detection of adenoma and other lesions using colonoscopy with LCI and high-definition white light imaging (WLI), we included patients from 11 institutions across four countries/regions: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Singapore. We retrospectively reviewed differences in the lesion detection of LCI according to endoscopists' colonoscopy history or ADR.

RESULTS

We included 1692 and 1138 patients who underwent colonoscopies performed by 54 experts (experience of ≥ 5000 colonoscopies) and by 43 non-experts (experience of < 5000 colonoscopies), respectively. Both expert and non-expert groups showed a significant improvement in ADR with LCI compared to WLI (expert, 61.7% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001; non-expert, 56.6% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001). LCI had no effect on sessile serrated lesion detection rate in non-experts (3.1% vs 2.5%; P = 0.518). LCI significantly improved detection rates in endoscopists with relatively low detection performance, defined as an ADR < 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study analyzed data from a previous trial and revealed that LCI is useful for both experts and non-experts and is even more beneficial for endoscopists with relatively low detection performance using WLI.

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.

Sessile serrated polyp detection rates after fecal immunochemical test or multitarget stool DNA test: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Published studies report a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FIT-DNA as compared with FIT. Data are less replete about the performance of stool-based tests for sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of FIT and FIT-DNA testing for SSP detection rate (SSPDR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for follow up of positive noninvasive tests. Methods A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases (until September 2022) was performed to identify studies reporting SSPDR in patients with positive FIT or FIT-DNA tests. The outcome was overall colonoscopy detection of any SSPs and advanced serrated polyps (ASP: SSP ≥ 10 mm and/or dysplasia). Results Included were 482,405 patients (52.4% females) with a mean age of 62.3 ± 4.4 years from 23 studies. The pooled SSPDR for all positive stool-based tests was 5.3% and higher for FIT-DNA (15.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3-25.7) versus FIT (4.1%, 95% CI 3.0-5.6; P = 0.0002). The overall pooled ASP detection rate was 1.4% (95% CI 0.81-2.3) and higher for FIT-DNA (3.8 %, 95% CI 1.7-8.6) compared with FIT (0.71%, 95% CI 0.36-1.4; P <0.01). SSPDR with FIT-DNA was also significantly higher than FIT when the FIT cutoff was >10 ug/g and in FIT-positive patients in studies conducted in North America ( P <0.05). Conclusions FIT-DNA outperformed FIT in both SSP and ASP detection including FIT with a lower threshold cutoff of >10 ug/g. Further comparative studies are needed to assess the impact of our findings on colorectal cancer reduction.

The Effects of Combined Use of Linaclotide and Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder in Colonoscopy Preparation for Patients With Chronic Constipation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder in patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy preparation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 260 patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy. They were equally divided into 4 groups using a random number table: 4L PEG, 3L PEG, 3L PEG+L, and 2L PEG+L. The 4 groups were compared based on their scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), adverse reactions during the bowel preparation procedure, colonoscope insertion time, colonoscope withdrawal time, detection rate of adenomas, and their willingness to repeat bowel preparation.

RESULTS

In terms of the score of the right half of the colon, the score of the transverse colon, the total score using BBPS, and the total score using OBPQS, the 3L PEG (polyethylene glycol)+L group was superior to groups 3L PEG and 2L PEG+L ( P <0.05), but comparable to the 4L PEG group ( P >0.05). The incidence rate of vomiting was higher in the 4L PEG group than in the 2L PEG+L group ( P <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the insertion time of the colonoscope between the 4 groups. The colonoscope withdrawal time in the 3L PEG+L group was shorter than in groups 4L PEG and 3L PEG ( P <0.05) and comparable to that in the 4L PEG group ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of adenoma detection among the 4 groups ( P >0.05). The 4L PEG group was the least willing of the 4 groups to undergo repeated bowel preparation ( P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

The 3L PEG+L is optimal among the 4 procedures. It can facilitate high-quality bowel preparation, reduce the incidence of nausea during the bowel preparation procedure, and encourage patients to undertake repeated bowel preparation.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Colon polyps: updates in classification and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon polyps are potential precursors to colorectal cancer (CRC), which remains one of the most common causes of cancer-associated death. The proper identification and management of these colorectal polyps is an important quality measure for colonoscopy outcomes. Here, we review colon polyp epidemiology, their natural history, and updates in endoscopic classification and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Colon polyps that form from not only the adenoma, but also the serrated polyp pathway have significant risk for future progression to CRC. Therefore, correct identification and management of sessile serrated lesions can improve the quality of screening colonoscopy. Malignant polyp recognition continues to be heavily reliant on well established endoscopic classification systems and plays an important role in intraprocedural management decisions. Hot snare remains the gold standard for pedunculated polyp resection. Nonpedunculated noninvasive lesions can be effectively removed by large forceps if diminutive, but cold snare is preferred for colon polyps 3-20 mm in diameter. Larger lesions at least 20 mm require endoscopic mucosal resection. Polyps with the endoscopic appearance of submucosal invasion require surgical referral or advanced endoscopic resection in select cases. Advances in artificial intelligence may revolutionize endoscopic polyp classification and improve both patient and cost-related outcomes of colonoscopy.

SUMMARY

Clinicians should be aware of the most recent updates in colon polyp classification and management to provide the best care to their patients initiating screening colonoscopy.

Endoscopy Unit Level Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely correlated with the risk of interval colon cancer and is a key target for quality improvement in endoscopy units. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that can be implemented at the endoscopy unit level to improve ADRs.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between January 1990 and December 2022 to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were eligible. Data for the primary outcome of ADR were analyzed and reported on the log-odds scale with 95% CIs using a random-effects meta-analysis model using the empiric Bayes estimator.

RESULTS

From 10,778 initial citations, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis comprising 371,041 procedures and 1501 endoscopists. The provision of report cards (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001) and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .002) were associated with significant increases in ADRs whereas multimodal interventions were borderline significant (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; P = .05) and withdrawal time monitoring was not associated significantly with an increase in ADRs (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.93-1.96; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of report cards and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps are associated with improved ADRs and should be considered for implementation in endoscopy facilities.

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

RESULTS

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Multitarget Stool RNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04739722.

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

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

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

An Accurate and Automated Method for Adenoma Detection Rate and Report Card Generation Utilizing Common Electronic Health Records

GOALS

To develop an automated method for Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) calculation and report card generation using common electronic health records (EHRs).

BACKGROUND

ADR is the most widely accepted colonoscopy quality indicator and is inversely associated with interval colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, ADR is difficult to efficiently measure and disseminate, due to need for data integration from distinct electronic databases.

METHODS

We migrated data from an endoscopy reporting software (Endosoft) to Epic Reporting Servers where it was combined with anatomic pathology data (Beaker Lab Information System, EPIC Systems). A natural language processing expression was developed to search Beaker pathology reports for accurate identification of adenomatous polyps. A blinded physician manually validated a final cohort of 200 random procedures. ADR report cards were automatically generated utilizing the Crystal Reports feature within EPIC.

RESULTS

Validation of the natural language processing algorithm for ADR showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%. ADR was automatically calculated for 12 endoscopists over a calendar year. Two thousand two hundred seventy-six screening colonoscopies were performed with 775 procedures having a least one adenoma detected, for a total ADR of 34%. Report cards were successfully generated within the EPIC EHR and distributed to endoscopists by secure e-mail.

CONCLUSION

We describe an accurate, automated and scalable process for ADR calculation and reporting utilizing commonly adopted EHRs and data integration methods. By integrating the process of ADR collection and streamlining dissemination of reports, this methodology is poised to enhance colonoscopy quality care across health care networks that use it.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Image acquisition as novel colonoscopic quality indicator: a single-center retrospective study

Purpose

In order to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, improving the quality of colonoscopy is the top priority. At present, the adenoma detection rate is the most used index to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. So, we further verified the relevant factors influencing the quality of colonoscopy and found out the novel quality indicators by studying the relationship between the influencing factors and the adenoma detection rate.

Materials/methods

The study included 3824 cases of colonoscopy from January to December 2020. We retrospectively recorded the age and sex of the subjects; the number, size, and histological features of lesions; withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy. We analyzed the associated factors affecting adenoma and polyp detection, and verified their effectiveness with both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

Logistic regression analyses showed that gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy could serve as independent predictors of adenoma/polyp detection rate. In addition, adenoma detection rate (25.36% vs. 14.29%) and polyp detection rate (53.99% vs. 34.42%) showed a marked increase when the number of images taken during colonoscopy was ≥29 (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy are influencing factors for the detection of colorectal adenomas and polyps. And we can gain higher adenoma/polyp detection rate when endoscopists capture more colonoscopic images.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Factors Associated with Difficulty Maintaining Insufflation of the Colon During Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Insufflation of the colon allows for adequate visualization of the mucosal tissue and advancement of the endoscope during colonoscopy. Most colonoscopies are performed with sedation to mitigate discomfort and enhance the colonoscopy experience for both the patient and the endoscopist.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate factors associated with difficulty maintaining insufflation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the Oklahoma City Veterans Affairs Medical Center was performed. Experiencing difficulty maintaining air insufflation during colonoscopy was assessed with a questionnaire completed by the performing endoscopist at the end of procedure. Information regarding procedure times, sedation used, demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medications used was extracted from the medical record. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with difficulty maintaining air insufflation. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

996 Patients were included for the analysis. Difficulty with insufflation was reported in 240 (24%) colonoscopies; mean age of 63.8 ± 10.4 years old and 13% were female. Fellow trainees were involved in 669 (67%) colonoscopies. Older age (OR 1.02, P 0.03, CI [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.03, 2.05]), fellow's involvement (OR 2.6. (95% CI [1.68, 4.09]), total procedure time (OR 1.02, 95% CI [1.00, 1.03]), mean number of adenomas (OR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00, 1.09]), and MAC use (OR 2.6, 95% CI [1.80, 3.85]) were independent predictors for difficulty in maintaining air insufflation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that endoscopists should be cognizant of colon insufflation issues in older, diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopies under deep sedation, particularly if prolonged procedure is anticipated or encountered.

Adoption of Optimal Small (6-9 mm) Colorectal Polyp Resection Technique Over Time

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP).

AIMS

To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

METHODS

This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

RESULTS

In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.

Risk of Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia After Removal of Diminutive Versus Small Nonadvanced Adenomas: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Current postpolypectomy guidelines treat 1-9 mm nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) as carrying the same level of risk for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN).

AIMS

To evaluate whether small (6-9 mm) NAAs are associated with a greater risk of metachronous ACRN than diminutive (1-5 mm) NAAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 10,060 index colonoscopies performed from July 2011 to June 2019. A total of 1369 patients aged ≥ 40 years with index NAAs and having follow-up examinations were categorized into 5 groups based on size and number of index findings: Group 1, ≤ 2 diminutive NAAs (n = 655); Group 2, ≤ 2 small NAAs (n = 529); Group 3, 3-4 diminutive NAAs (n = 78); Group 4, 3-4 small NAAs (n = 65); and Group 5, 5-10 NAAs (n = 42). Size was classified based on the largest NAA. ACRN was defined as finding an advanced adenoma or colorectal cancer at follow-up.

RESULTS

The absolute risk of metachronous ACRN increased from 7.2% in patients with all diminutive NAAs to 12.2% in patients with at least 1 small NAA (P = 0.002). Patients in Group 2 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-2.95), Group 3 (AOR 2.40; 95% CI 1.78-4.90), Group 4 (AOR 2.77; 95% CI 1.35-5.66), and Group 5 (AOR 3.71; 95% CI 1.65-8.37) were associated with an increased risk of metachronous ACRN compared with Group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small NAAs have an increased risk of metachronous ACRN. Postpolypectomy guidelines should consider including risk stratification between small and diminutive adenomas.

Improving documentation of anticoagulation and antiplatelet recommendations after outpatientendoscopy

Clear documentation of instructions for resuming anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) medications after gastrointestinal endoscopy is essential for high-quality postprocedure care. Yet, these recommendations are frequently absent, which may impact patient safety. We aimed to improve documentation of postprocedural AC/AP instructions through targeted interventions during outpatient endoscopy at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center using validated Quality Improvement methodology. We identified patients on AC/AP agents presenting for outpatient oesophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy and found restart recommendations were documented in only 59.4% of procedures at baseline. After two intervention cycles, which included provider education, nursing prompts and alterations to endoscopic documentation software, postprocedure documentation increased by 26.7%-86.1% when compared with baseline (p<0.001). These interventions, which require low-resource utilisation, could be part of standardised processes readily implemented at other institutions to help potentially reduce postprocedure patient confusion, medication errors and complications.

Reduced Adenoma Miss Rate With 9-Minute vs 6-Minute Withdrawal Times for Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although the 9-minute mean withdrawal time (m-WT) is often reported to be associated with the optimal adenoma detection rate (ADR), no randomized trials of screening colonoscopy have confirmed the impact of a 9-minute m-WT on adenoma miss rate (AMR) and ADR.

METHODS

A multicenter tandem trial was conducted in 11 centers. Seven hundred thirty-three asymptomatic participants were randomized to receive segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with a 9-minute withdrawal, followed by a 6-minute withdrawal (9-minute-first group, 9MF, n = 366) or vice versa (6-minute-first group, 6MF, n = 367). The primary outcome was the lesion-level AMR.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level (14.5% vs 36.6%, P < 0.001) and participant-level AMR (10.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001), advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR, 5.3% vs 46.9%, P = 0.002), multiple adenomas miss rate (20.7% vs 56.5%, P = 0.01), and high-risk adenomas miss rate (14.6% vs 39.5%, P = 0.01) of 6MF without compromising detection efficiency ( P = 0.79). In addition, a lower false-negative rate for adenomas ( P = 0.002) and high-risk adenomas ( P < 0.05), and a lower rate of shortening surveillance schedule ( P < 0.001) were also found in 9MF, accompanying with an improved ADR in the 9-minute vs 6-minute m-WT (42.3% vs 33.5%, P = 0.02). The independent inverse association between m-WT and AMR remained significant even after adjusting ADR, and meanwhile, 9-minute m-WT was identified as an independent protector for AMR and AAMR.

DISCUSSION

In addition to increasing ADR, 9-minute m-WT also significantly reduces the AMR and AAMR of screening colonoscopy without compromising detection efficiency.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Colonoscopy Does Not Increase Adenoma Detection Rate in Routine Clinical Practice

The performance of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy (AIAC) in a real-world setting has not been described. We compared adenoma and polyp detection rates (ADR/PDR) in a 6-month period before (pre-AIAC) and after introduction of AIAC (GI Genius, Medtronic) in all endoscopy suites in our large-volume center. The ADR and PDR in the AIAC group was lower compared with those in the pre-AIAC group (30.3% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001; 36.5% vs 40.9%, P = 0.004, respectively); procedure time was significantly shorter in the AIAC group. In summary, introduction of AIAC did not result in performance improvement in our large-center cohort, raising important questions on AI-human interactions in medicine.

Image-Enhanced Endoscopy in the Surveillance of Colitis-Associated Neoplasia

Advances in endoscopic technology have allowed for improved detection and management of dysplasia. These developments have also raised the question of the optimal methods for surveillance. Promising data showed that virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) is comparable to dye-based chromoendoscopy (DCE). However, the usefulness of DCE and VCE in the surveillance of longstanding inflammatory bowel disease colitis when compared with high-definition white-light endoscopy has been recently questioned. Confocal laser endomicroscopy is a highly innovative endoscopic procedure but is still far from the routine adoption for surveillance. Thus, a personalized approach should guide the most appropriate surveillance strategy.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk.

METHODS

Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Low volume polyethylene glycol combined with senna versus high volume polyethylene glycol, which regimen is better for bowel preparation for colonoscopy? A randomized, controlled, and single‐blinded trial

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation affects the quality of colonoscopy. Reaching the optimal preparation has been a challenge for years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the sole FDA‐approved substance for this purpose. However, patients find it unpleasant and often complain about its adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to reduce these complaints by lowering the amount of PEG and adding senna which is an herbal stimulant laxative.

Methods

Four hundred and eighty‐six patients were admitted for colonoscopy. Finally, 382 patients were enrolled in the study and we divided them into two groups; 186 patients were placed in which conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen was consumed and 196 patients in which low volume PEG plus senna regimen was offered. The quality of colon preparation was compared between the two groups by independent two samples t‐test (or its corresponding nonparametric test), Fisher's exact, or χ² test in SPSS software version 22.

Results

The colon preparation quality was equally efficient in the two groups as 69.36% in the high volume PEG group and 71.94% in PEG plus senna group had adequate bowel preparation (p = 0.58). Adverse effects, like nausea, bloating, headache, and sleeplessness were significantly less in the low volume PEG plus senna group.

Conclusion

Besides the fact that bowel preparation by low volume PEG plus senna combination was noninferior to the conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen, the side effects were much less common with the low volume PEG plus senna regimen.

Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1-L polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) has been used to reduce the volume of preparation agents in colonoscopy. This clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two types of 1-L PEG-Asc (CleanViewAL^® [Tae Joon Pharmaceutical Company, Seoul, Korea] and Plenvu^® [Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom]) in average-aged adults.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluated using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), and the secondary endpoint was clinical safety.

RESULTS

In total, 173 patients were assigned to either the CleanViewAL^® (n=84) or Plenvu^® (n=89) group. Overall cleansing successes of 97.6% (82/84) and 98.8% (88/89) were achieved in the CleanViewAL^® group and in the Plenvu^® group, respectively, showing that CleanViewAL^® has similar bowel cleansing efficacy to Plenvu^® (95% CI, -0.052 to 0.027; p=0.207). The total BBPS score was 8.67±1.00 and 8.70±0.76 in the CleanViewAL^® group and Plenvu^® group, respectively (p=0.869). The most common adverse symptom was nausea, and no adverse symptoms requiring hospitalization were reported in either group. There were no cases of critical hypernatremia and liver dysfunction exceeding the common terminology criteria for adverse events grade I. An overall satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 10) showed no difference between the two groups (p=0.289). However, the CleanViewAL^® group showed a higher taste satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 5) than the Plenvu^® group (CleanViewAL^®: 2.90±0.91, Plenvu^®: 2.60±0.86, p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Both types of 1-L PEG-Asc, CleanViewAL^® and Plenvu^®, are effective and safe bowel cleansing agents in average-aged adults. CleanViewAL^® was preferred in terms of taste satisfaction.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

METHODS

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Continuous ADR50 monitoring through automated linkage between endoscopy and pathology: a quality improvement initiative in a Brussels public hospital

Background and study aim: Adenoma detection rate in patients aged 50 years or older (ADR50) is considered by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) a key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Technical and human resources constrain implementation of recording quality monitoring. The aim was to deploy an infrastructure for continuous monitoring of endoscopy quality indicators. And to evaluate its potential benefit on quality performance. Methods: A company reporting system was adapted by adding a dedicated tab for quality monitoring, including: preparation, progression, number of resected polyps. Automated linkage with the pathology database resulted in continuous monitoring of inter alia: rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate and ADR50. Continuous monitoring was done for all nine endoscopists working at our center, with individual feedback after 4, 9 and 28 months. Results: A total of 1434 colonoscopies were performed during the first 9 months of monitoring, 682 during the first 4 months, 752 during the following 5 months. Five months after feedback a global increase in ADR50 of 4.6% (22.9% to 27.5%) (P<0.05) was observed, compared to the first 4 months. Thus meeting the benchmark (≥25%) recommended by ESGE. A durable effect of monitoring and feedback was observed after 28 months (ADR50: 29.4%). Conclusions: An easy to use infrastructure for registration of quality monitoring in daily endoscopy practice, automatically linking the pathology database, facilitates continuous monitoring of endoscopy quality indicators. A global and durable ADR50 increase was observed after feedback, considered a quality improvement in performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy at our center.

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.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

Surveillance Recommendation for Colonoscopy after Polypectomy

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have declined over the past several decades, largely due to improvement and uptake in screening, particularly with colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC published guidelines for surveillance after polypectomy in 2012, which were updated in 2020 with some important changes, and this review will provide an updated overview of evidence and outcomes of surveillance after polypectomy. Notable modifications to surveillance guidelines include increasing interval time between colonoscopies from 5 to 7 to 10 years for 1 to 2 low-risk adenomas (<10 mm) and from 3 years to 3 to 5 years when 3 to 4 low-risk adenomas are identified.