Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy

Clinical Outcomes from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Colorectal Cancer Control Program: 2009-2015

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) participated in the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) from 2009 to 2015. We conducted a descriptive evaluation of ANTHC CRCCP demographics, quality measures, and clinical outcomes, including screening methods employed within the program and screening outcomes. There were 6981 program screenings completed, with the majority (81.3%) of people screened in the 50-75 year age group. Colonoscopy was the primary screening test used, accounting for 6704 (96.9%) of the screening tests. Quality of colonoscopy was high: adequate bowel preparation was reported in 98.2% of colonoscopies, cecal intubation rate was 98.9%, and the adenoma detection rate was 38.9%. A high proportion (58.9%) of colonoscopies had an initial finding of polyps or lesions suspicious for cancer; 41.2% of all colonoscopies had histological confirmation of either adenomatous polyps (40.6%) or cancer (0.5%). The ANTHC CRCCP successfully increased CRC screening among American Indian and Alaska Native peoples living in Alaska; this was achieved primarily through high-quality colonoscopy metrics. These data support a continued focus by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and its tribal health partners on increasing CRC screening and reducing cancer mortality among Alaska Native peoples.

The role of endoscopist adenoma detection rate in in sex differences in colonoscopy findings: cross-sectional analysis of the SCREESCO randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fewer adenomas are detected at colonoscopy in women compared to men and failure to detect adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is associated with an increased risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this was in part due to the greater difficulty of conducting colonoscopy in women, with the difference being more apparent in colonoscopies conducted by less skilled endoscopists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of data on 16,551 individuals undergoing a primary colonoscopy (PCOL group) or colonoscopy after positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT group) within the randomized controlled trial SCREESCO. Endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR; low or high) was determined based on each endoscopist's colonoscopies performed in SCREESCO. In each study group, the relationship between the sex difference in colonoscopy outcome and endoscopist ADR was assessed using multiplicative interaction tests.

RESULTS

Endoscopists performed equally many colonoscopies in men and women (median 52% men). There were no signs of effect modification of the risk ratio of any finding (men vs women) by endoscopist ADR in the PCOL group (p = 0.33) or the FIT group (p = 0.30). The proportion of incomplete index colonoscopies was lower in men than in women in both groups and there was no effect modification by endoscopist ADR in either the PCOL group (p = 0.41) or the FIT group (p = 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides no evidence that endoscopist skill measured by ADR underlies the sex difference in adenoma detection at colonoscopy. This study has trial number NCT02078804 and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Endoscopist-related factors affecting adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Data from the J-SCOUT study

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy withdrawal times are associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the relationship between ADR and cecal insertion time has been inadequately characterized. We aimed to evaluate endoscopist-related factors involved in the ADR, including the average individual colonoscopy insertion and withdrawal times.

METHODS

This observational study used a colonoscopy database with pathology data from routine clinical practice in Japanese institutions. The odds ratios (OR) of endoscopist-related factors related to ADRs were examined using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Of the 186,293 colonoscopies performed during the study period, 47,705 colonoscopies by 189 endoscopists in four hospitals were analyzed for ADR. The overall ADR was 38.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.8, 38.7). Compared to endoscopists with mean cecal insertion times of <5 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean cecal insertion times of 5-9, 10-14, and ≥15 min were 0.84 (95% CI 0.71, 0.99), 0.68 (95% CI 0.52, 0.90), and 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.78), respectively. Compared to endoscopists with mean withdrawal times of <6 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean withdrawal times of 6-9, 10-14, and ≥15 min were 1.38 (95% CI 1.03, 1.85), 1.48 (95% CI 1.09, 2.02), and 1.68 (95% CI 1.04, 2.61), respectively. There were no significant differences in ADRs by endoscopist specialty, gender, or the total number of examinations performed.

CONCLUSION

Individual mean colonoscopy insertion time was associated with ADR and might be considered as a colonoscopy quality indicator as well as withdrawal time.

Development, quality, and influencing factors of colonoscopy in China: results from the national census in 2013 and 2020

Background and Aim

With the increasing burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), the practice of colonoscopy is gaining attention worldwide. However, it exhibits distinct trends between developing and developed countries. This study aims to explore its development and identify influencing factors in China.

Methods

The Chinese Digestive Endoscopy Censuses were conducted twice in mainland China under the supervision of health authorities. Information regarding the practice of colonoscopy was collected through a structured online questionnaire. The authenticity of the data was evaluated through logical tests, and a random selection of endoscopic reports underwent manual validation by Quality Control Centers. Potential factors associated with colonoscopy were analyzed using real-world information.

Results

From 2012 to 2019, the number of hospitals that performed colonoscopy increased from 3,210 to 6,325 (1.97-fold), and the volume increased from 5.83 to 12.92 million (2.21-fold). The utilization rate rose from 436.0 to 914.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (2.10-fold). However, there was an exacerbation of regional inequality in the adequacy of colonoscopy. Regions with higher incidence of CRC, higher gross domestic product per capita, more average numbers of endoscopists and tertiary hospitals tended to provide more accessible colonoscopy (P<0.001). Nationwide, the cecal intubation rate improved from 83.9% to 94.4% and the unadjusted adenoma detection rate (ADR) improved from 16.3% to 18.1%. Overall, hospital grading, educational background of endoscopists, economic income, and colonoscopy volume were observed as the significantly positive factors affecting ADR (P<0.05), but not the incidence of CRC or the number of endoscopists.

Conclusions

Tremendous progress in colonoscopy has been made in China, but some issues needed timely reflection. Our findings provide timely evidence for better colonoscopy strategies and measures, such as quality control and medical education of endoscopists.

Clinical Validation Benchmark Dataset and Expert Performance Baseline for Colorectal Polyp Localization Methods

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading death causes worldwide, but, fortunately, early detection highly increases survival rates, with the adenoma detection rate being one surrogate marker for colonoscopy quality. Artificial intelligence and deep learning methods have been applied with great success to improve polyp detection and localization and, therefore, the adenoma detection rate. In this regard, a comparison with clinical experts is required to prove the added value of the systems. Nevertheless, there is no standardized comparison in a laboratory setting before their clinical validation. The ClinExpPICCOLO comprises 65 unedited endoscopic images that represent the clinical setting. They include white light imaging and narrow band imaging, with one third of the images containing a lesion but, differently to another public datasets, the lesion does not appear well-centered in the image. Together with the dataset, an expert clinical performance baseline has been established with the performance of 146 gastroenterologists, who were required to locate the lesions in the selected images. Results shows statistically significant differences between experience groups. Expert gastroenterologists' accuracy was 77.74, while sensitivity and specificity were 86.47 and 74.33, respectively. These values can be established as minimum values for a DL method before performing a clinical trial in the hospital setting.

Evaluation of the quality of colonoscopies performed by Alberta North Zone surgeons, family physicians and internists: a quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND

In Canada, endoscopy is primarily performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons, and some studies report that colonoscopies performed by nongastroenterologists have more complications and higher rates of future colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine whether rural-based nongastroenterologist endoscopists are achieving quality benchmarks in colonoscopy.

METHODS

This quality improvement initiative prospectively evaluated 6 key performance indicators (KPIs) (cecal intubations, polyp detection [males and females; for first-time colonoscopies on patients aged ≥ 50 yr], bowel preparations, patient comfort and withdrawal times) on consecutive colonoscopies performed by participating Alberta North Zone endoscopists. The study period was June 2018 to March 2020. Overall and individual endoscopist's KPIs were compared with standard benchmarks. Additional performance indicators included mean number of polyps per colonoscopy and an exploration of study-defined sedation-related level of consciousness.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 6212 colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists (9 surgeons, 5 family physicians and 2 internists) in 6 hospitals. All 6 KPI benchmarks were achieved when results were pooled over all endoscopists in the study. Overall, cecal intubation occurred in 6006 of 6209 (96.7%, 95% confidence interval 94.5%-99.0%) cases. Polyp detection was 65.9% (592/898) and 49.8% (348/699) for male and female patients, respectively, aged 50 years or older. Variability in individual endoscopist results existed, especially for the mean number of polyps per 100 colonoscopies and sedation-related level of consciousness.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, Alberta North Zone endoscopists are performing high-quality colonoscopies, collectively achieving all 6 KPIs. To understand endoscopic performance and encourage individual and group reflection on endoscopic practices, Canadian endoscopists are encouraged to participate in similar colonoscopy quality initiative studies.

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators, and its variability depending on factors such as sedation or indication for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important worldwide public health burden and colonoscopy is the main diagnostic and most importantly, preventive method. For this reason, many countries have implemented national or regional CRC screening programs. High-quality colonoscopy is a prerequisite to effectively detect premalignant lesions, like adenomas. The quality of colonoscopy is assessed using several quality indicators, the main one being adenoma detection rate (ADR). In Romania, despite CRC having the highest incidence of all cancers, there is no national screening program and quality in colonoscopy is not routinely assessed. We therefore wanted to evaluate the actual level of quality in colonoscopy in a region of Romania. Our study was conducted in two private endoscopy clinics over a period of 7 months. 1,440 consecutive colonoscopies performed by five physicians were included in the study. We found that the quality level is above the minimum one recommended by international societies and that the ADR calculation method does not significantly influence its value. Furthermore, ADR correlated well with other quality indicators such as polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC). An interesting finding was that ADR was higher among colonoscopies performed without sedation. Thus, our data encourage endoscopists to adopt a sedation-free colonoscopy in their practice without an impact on the quality of the procedure.

Upper endoscopy photodocumentation quality evaluation with novel deep learning system

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Colonoscopy - When quality matters

Colonoscopy technical quality is a primary determinant of clinical outcome. Unfortunately, there is enough evidence available for significant variability in endoscopists' performance. An assessment of the factors determining these differences will be crucial for designing measures to ensure effectiveness and safety in these procedures.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

When should we perform colonoscopy to increase the adenoma detection rate?

The rate of adenoma detection is the most reliable quality indicator of colonoscopy. Studies have reported that colonoscopy performed in morning has a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) than that performed in the afternoon. These studies have explained that several physician-related factors such as undergoing an emergency procedure the night before colonoscopy, accumulated workload, and increased fatigue level in the afternoon might have led to such finding. However, several opposing articles have indicated that the time of day and ADR is not quite related. Complex confounding factors can impact study results. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and bowel preparation quality are key factors. However, queue list numbers, participation of academic fellows, nurses' assistance, and the number of colonoscopies allocated per hour are also notable factors. Recently, an attempt has been made to homogenize the ADR in the morning and afternoon through artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy. This review article introduces the history of this long-debated topic, discusses points to consider in real-world practice, and suggests new ideas for planning future research. By understanding this issue, the rate of adenoma detection during colonoscopy is expected to be improved further.

The analysis of multilevel factors affecting adenoma detection rates for colonoscopies: a large-scale retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated primary quality indicator for colonoscopy procedures. However, there is growing concern over the variability associated with ADR indicators. Currently, the factors that influence ADRs are not well understood.

AIMS

In this large-scale retrospective study, the impact of multilevel factors on the quality of ADR-based colonoscopy was assessed.

METHODS

A total of 10,788 patients, who underwent colonoscopies performed by 21 endoscopists between January 2019 and December 2019, were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Multilevel factors, including patient-, procedure-, and endoscopist-level characteristics were analyzed to determine their relationship with ADR.

RESULTS

The overall ADR was 20.21% and ranged from 11.4 to 32.8%. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that higher ADRs were strongly correlated with the following multilevel factors: patient age per stage (OR 1.645; 95% CI 1.577-1.717), male gender (OR 1.959; 95% CI 1.772-2.166), sedation (OR 1.402; 95% CI 1.246-1.578), single examiner colonoscopy (OR 1.330; 95% CI 1.194-1.482) and senior level endoscopists (OR 1.609; 95% CI 1.449-1.787).

CONCLUSION

The ADR is positively correlated with senior level endoscopists and single examiner colonoscopies in patients under sedation. As such, these procedure- and endoscopist-level characteristics are important considerations to improve the colonoscopy quality.

Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by the time of day in computer-aided detection colonoscopy

Because of endoscopist fatigue, the time of colonoscopy have been shown to influence adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided detection (CADe) provides simultaneous visual alerts on polyps during colonoscopy and thus to increase adenoma detection rate. This is attributable to the strengthening of endoscopists diagnostic level and alleviation of fatigue. The aim of the study was to investigate whether CADe colonoscopy could eliminate the influence of the afternoon fatigue on ADR.We retrospectively analyzed the recorded data of patients who were performed CADe colonoscopy from September 2017 to February 2019 in Endoscopy Center of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital. Patients demographic as well as baseline data recorded during colonoscopy were used for the analysis. Morning colonoscopy was defined as colonoscopic procedures starting between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon. Afternoon colonoscopy was defined as procedures starting at 2:00 pm and thereafter. The primary outcome was ADR. Univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis were also performed.A total of 484 CADe colonoscopies were performed by 4 endoscopists in the study. The overall polyp detection rate was 52% and overall ADR was 35.5%. The mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.62 vs 0.61, P > .05) and ADR (0.36 vs 0.35, P > .05) were similar in the am and pm group. Multivariable analysis shows that the ADR of CADe colonoscopy was influenced by the age (P < .001), gender (P = .004) and withdrawal time (P < .001), no correlation was found regarding bowel preparation (P = .993) and endoscopist experience (P = .804).CADe colonoscopy could eliminate the influence of the afternoon fatigue on ADR. The ADR during CADe colonoscopy is significantly affected by age, gender and withdrawal time.

Adenomas per colonoscopy and adenoma per positive participant as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy

Background and study aims  Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and adenomas per positive patient (APP) have been proposed as additional quality indicators but their association with adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not well studied. The aim of our study was to evaluate the variability in APC and APP, their association with ADR, and associated risk factors in screening colonoscopies from a community practice. Patients and methods  We calculated the APC, APP, and ADR from all screening colonoscopies performed over 5 years. We used adjusted hierarchical logistic regression to assess the association of factors with APC, APP, and ADR. Results  There were 80,915 screening colonoscopies by 60 gastroenterologists. The median (Q1-Q3) APC, APP, and ADR were 0.41 (0.36 - 0.53), 1.33 (1.23 - 1.40), and 0.32 (0.28 - 0.38), respectively. Despite the high correlation between APC and ADR, 47.6 % of endoscopists with the lowest APC had a higher ADR, and no endoscopists with the highest APC had a lower ADR. Of endoscopists with the lowest APP, 74.3 % had a higher ADR and 5.6 % of endoscopists with the highest APP had a lower ADR. Factors associated with higher APC after multivariable adjustment included: older patients age (OR 1.003; 95 % CI 1.002 - 1.005), male patients (OR 1.123; 95 % CI 1.090 - 1.156), younger endoscopist age (OR 0.943; 95 % CI 0.941 - 0.945), and longer withdrawal time (OR 3.434; 95 % CI 2.941 - 4.010). Factors associated with higher APP were male sex, younger endoscopist age, and longer withdrawal time. Conclusion  APC and APP provides additional information about endoscopist performance. Younger endoscopist age and longer withdrawal time are associated with colonoscopy quality.

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.

Younger Physicians and Longer Withdrawal Times Are Associated With Detection of Advanced Neoplasia in a Large Community Practice

Studies assessing colonoscopic practice have demonstrated variation in adenoma detection rate,¹ detection rates of advanced adenomas,^2,3 and detection rates of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs).^4,5 Our aims were to study the patient-, provider-, and procedure-level variables associated with detection rates of adenoma, SSLs, and advanced neoplasia in screening colonoscopies performed in large community practice.

Association Between Endoscopist Annual Procedure Volume and Colonoscopy Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In addition to monitoring adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC), indicators for assessing colonoscopy quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). It is unclear whether there is an association between annual colonoscopy volume and ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC.

METHODS

We searched publication databases through March 2019 for studies assessing the relationship between annual colonoscopy volume and outcomes, including ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

We performed a systematic review of 9235 initial citations, generating 27 retained studies comprising 11,276,244 colonoscopies. There was no association between procedural volume and ADR (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02 per additional 100 annual procedures). CIR improved with each additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28). There was a non-significant trend toward decreased overall AEs per additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). There was considerable heterogeneity among most analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found higher annual colonoscopy volumes to correlate with higher CIR, but not with ADR or PCCRC. Trends toward fewer AEs were associated with higher annual colonoscopy volumes. There are few data available from endoscopists who perform fewer than 100 annual colonoscopies. Studies are needed on extremes in performance volumes to more clearly elucidate associations between colonoscopy volumes and outcomes.

Relationship between the polyp detection rate and the post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate

AIM

the adenoma detection rate is the quality indicator of colonoscopy that is most closely related to the development of interval colorectal cancer or post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, the recording of this indicator in different units of gastrointestinal endoscopy is obstructed due to the large consumption of resources required for its calculation. Several alternatives have been proposed, such as the polyp detection rate. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the polyp detection rate and its influence on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

in this study, 12,482 colonoscopies conducted by 14 endoscopists were analyzed. The polyp detection rate was calculated for each endoscopist. Endoscopists were grouped into quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4), from lowest to highest polyp detection rate, in order to evaluate whether there were any differences in the development of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

the lowest polyp detection rate was 20.66% and the highest was 52.16%, with a median of 32.78 and a standard deviation of ± 8.54. A strong and positive association between polyp endoscopy diagnosis and adenoma histopathology result was observed and a linear regression was performed. A significantly higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate was observed in the group of endoscopists with a lower polyp detection rate (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

polyp detection rate is a valuable quality indicator of colonoscopy and its calculation is much simpler than that of the adenoma detection rate. In our study, the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer was inversely and significantly related to the endoscopists' polyp detection rate.

Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Association of Adenoma and Proximal Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates With Endoscopist Characteristics

Importance

Research demonstrates adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rate (pSSPDR) are associated with endoscopist characteristics including sex, specialty, and years in practice. However, many studies have not adjusted for other risk factors associated with colonic neoplasia.

Objective

To assess the association between endoscopist characteristics and polyp detection after adjusting the factors included in previous studies as well as other factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted in the Cleveland Clinic health system with data from individuals undergoing screening colonoscopies between January 2015 and June 2017. The study analyzed data using methods from previous studies that have demonstrated significant associations between endoscopist characteristics and ADR or pSSPDR. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to examine 7 endoscopist characteristics associated with ADRs and pSSPDRs after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and colonoscopy-associated factors.

Exposures

Seven characteristics of endoscopists performing colonoscopy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The ADR and pSSPDR, with a hypothesis created after data collection began.

Results

A total of 16 089 colonoscopies were performed in 16 089 patients by 56 clinicians. Of these, 8339 patients were male (51.8%), and the median (range) age of the cohort was 59 (52-66) years. Analyzing the data by the methods used in 4 previous studies yielded an association between endoscopist and polyp detection; surgeons (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.83]) and nongastroenterologists (OR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.29-0.85]) had reduced odds of pSSPDR, which was similar to results in previous studies. In a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, ADR was not significantly associated with any endoscopist characteristic, and pSSPDR was only associated with years in practice (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89] per increment of 10 years; P < .001) and number of annual colonoscopies performed (odds ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01-1.09] per 50 colonoscopies/year; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

The differences in ADRs that were associated with 7 of 7 endoscopist characteristics and differences in pSSPDRs that were associated with 5 of 7 endoscopist characteristics in previous studies may have been associated with residual confounding, because they were not replicated in this analysis. Therefore, these characteristics should not influence the choice of endoscopist for colorectal cancer screening. However, clinicians further from their training and those with lower colonoscopy volumes have lower adjusted pSSPDRs and may need additional training to help increase pSSPDRs.

Association Between Endoscopist Personality and Rate of Adenoma Detection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is significant variation among endoscopists in their adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We explored associations between ADR and characteristics of endoscopists, including personality traits and financial incentives.

METHODS

We collected electronic health record data from October 2013 through September 2015 and calculated ADRs for physicians from 4 health systems. ADRs were risk-adjusted for differences in patient populations. Physicians were surveyed to assess financial motivations, knowledge and perceptions about colonoscopy quality, and personality traits. Of 140 physicians sent the survey, 117 responded.

RESULTS

The median risk-adjusted ADR for all surveyed physicians was 29.3% (interquartile range, 24.1%-35.5%). We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or physicians' perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. ADR was associated with the degree of self-reported compulsiveness relative to peers: among endoscopists who described themselves as much more compulsive, the ADR was 33.1%; among those who described themselves as somewhat more compulsive, the ADR was 32.9%; among those who described themselves as about the same as others, the ADR was 26.4%; and among those who described themselves as somewhat less compulsive, the ADR was 27.3%) (P = .0019). ADR was also associated with perceived thoroughness (much more thorough than peers, ADR = 31.5%; somewhat more, 31.9%; same/somewhat less, 27.1%; P = .0173). Physicians who reported feeling rushed, having difficulty pacing themselves, or having difficulty in accomplishing goals had higher ADRs. A secondary analysis found the same associations between personality and adenomas per colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. However, ADRs were higher among physicians who described themselves as more compulsive or thorough, and among those who reported feeling rushed or having difficulty accomplishing goals.

Factors associated with polyp detection during colonoscopy: A retrospective observational study

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is an important quality indicator for colonoscopy. Several factors have been shown to be associated with PDR. However, whether the moderate sedation is a factor for polyp detection remains controversial. This study aims to assess factors associated with polyp detection including the moderate sedation factor during colonoscopy. Patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 were enrolled into this retrospective study. Patients with poor colon preparation and failure to reach the cecum were excluded. The clinical factors, including patient's sex, age, midazolam/fentanyl sedation, indications, endoscopist colonoscopy volume, and use of antispasmodic agent were evaluated by multivariate analysis. A total of 3373 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 55.8 years, and 1980 patients (58.7%) were male. Among the 3373 patients, 2513 (74.5%) underwent midazolam/fentanyl-based sedated colonoscopy. The multivariate analysis showed that male sex, age over 50 years old, midazolam/fentanyl sedation and indications of screening and surveillance were significantly associated with polyp detection. Moreover, when stratified by sex and age, the midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with polyp detection in male patients and patients over 50 years old. This study has highlighted the role of midazolam/fentanyl sedation administered by colonoscopists as a modifiable factor that may increase polyp detection during colonoscopy.

Fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: Colonoscopy findings by different cut-off levels

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but number of tests and cut-off level differ by program. The aim was to evaluate CRC screening with two FIT samples in average-risk 60-year-old men and women and to investigate hemoglobin (Hb) level in correlation to adenoma characteristics.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort from Screening of Swedish Colons trial where participants with at least one of two FIT samples ≥10 μg Hb/g are offered colonoscopy. FIT levels and colonoscopy findings were assessed in multivariable analyses. Cut-off levels 10-80 μg Hb/g for one and two samples were assessed. FIT levels and advanced neoplasia (AN) were investigated by gender.

RESULTS

A total of 12 383 participated and 1182 positives (551 women) completed colonoscopy diagnosing 27 (2.3%) CRC and 269 (23%) advanced adenomas (AA). Median FIT level was 241.0 and 23.8 for CRC and AA compared with 13.4-15.8 in other subgroups (P = 0.002) correlating with adenoma size (P = 0.038). CRC was detected in 22 and 19 subjects for the first sample at cut-off 20 and 40 μg Hb/g, compared with 20 and 17 for the mean of two samples at cut-off 40 and 80 μg Hb/g (P < 0.05). Men had more AN (CRC + AA), (P = 0.003). In women, similar number of AN would be detected with cut-off lowered from 40 to 20 or from 80 to 40 μg Hb/g, requiring additional 26-34% colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

In average-risk 60-year-olds, FIT was higher in participants with AN and correlated with adenoma size. FIT screening with one sample at low cut-off detected more CRC than two samples at higher cut-off. Applying lower cut-off in women to equalize gender differences in AN would result in considerable increase in colonoscopy workload.

Risk factors for severe complications of colonoscopy in screening programs

Severe complications (SC) in colonoscopy represent the most important adverse effect of colorectal cancer screening programs (CRCSP). The objective is to evaluate the risk factors for SC in colonoscopy indicated after a positive fecal occult blood test in population-based CRCSP. The SC (n = 161) identified from 48,730 diagnostic colonoscopies performed in a cohort of all the women and men invited from 2000 to 2012 in 6 CRCSP in Spain. A total of 318 controls were selected, matched for age, sex and period when the colonoscopy was performed. Conditional logistic regression models were estimated. The analysis was performed separately in groups: immediate-SC (same day of the colonoscopy); late-SC (between 1 and 30 days after); perforation; and bleeding events. SC occurred in 3.30‰ of colonoscopies. Prior colon disease showed a higher risk of SC (OR = 4.87). Regular antiplatelet treatment conferred a higher risk of overall SC (OR = 2.80) and late-SC (OR = 9.26), as did regular anticoagulant therapy (OR = 3.47, OR = 7.36). A history of pelvic-surgery or abdominal-radiotherapy was a risk factor for overall SC (OR = 5.03), immediate-SC (OR = 8.49), late-SC (OR = 4.65) and perforation (OR = 21.59). A finding of adenoma or cancer also showed a higher risk of overall SC (OR = 8.71), immediate-SC (OR = 12.67), late-SC (OR = 4.08), perforation (OR = 4.69) and bleeding (OR = 17.02). The risk of SC doesn't vary depending on the type of preparation or type of anesthesia. Knowing the clinical history of patients such as regular previous medication and history of surgery or radiotherapy, as well as the severity of the findings during the colonoscopy process could help to focus prevention measures in order to minimize SC in CRCSP.

Changing from two- to one-operator colonoscopy insertion technique is feasible with similar quality outcomes

Background and Aim

Colonoscopy can be performed with two-operator (2OP) or one-operator (1OP) methods. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and colonoscopy quality outcomes for the two different colonoscopy insertion techniques.

Methods

One colonoscopist from Changhua Christian Hospital learned and changed the colonoscopy insertion technique from 2OP to 1OP during 2013. Real-life results of screening colonoscopies performed by this colonoscopist between these two insertion techniques (year 2012: 2OP vs year 2014: 1OP) were retrospectively reviewed and compared.

Results

In total, 219 screening colonoscopies were reviewed (2OP group, n = 103 vs 1OP group, n = 116). No differences were noted between both groups in terms of patient age, gender, weight, and height. The overall cecum intubation was 98.2%, adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 29.7%, and colonoscopy withdrawal time was 518.58 ± 972.04 s. On comparing colonoscopy quality outcomes between both methods, no differences were observed in cecal intubation rates (2OP vs 1OP: 100 vs 96.6%, P = 0.1626), ADR (28 vs 31%, P = 0.7401), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (454.88 ± 178.21 vs 576.92 ± 1325.01 s, P = 0.355). However, the 1OP group demonstrated significantly shorter colonoscopy insertion time (2OP vs 1OP: 298.28 ± 202.95 vs 216.21 ± 121.99 s, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy quality outcomes were not impaired when one endoscopist changed the colonoscopy practice pattern from 2OP to 1OP. However, 1OP significantly shortened the colonoscopy insertion time.

Carbon Dioxide Insufflation Increases Colonoscopic Adenoma Detection Rate Compared With Air Insufflation

GOALS

To determine the effect of carbon dioxide insufflation on the most important outcome measure of colonoscopic quality: adenoma detection rate (ADR).

BACKGROUND

Bowel cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in males and females in Australia. Carbon dioxide has in recent times become the insufflation methodology of choice for screening colonoscopy for bowel cancer, as this has been shown to have significant advantages when compared with traditional air insufflation.

STUDY

Endoscopies performed over a period of 9 months immediately before and after the implementation of carbon dioxide insufflation at endoscopy centers were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

The difference in ADR between the carbon dioxide and air insufflation methods was statistically significant, with an increased ADR in the carbon dioxide group. The superiority of carbon dioxide insufflation was sustained with a logistic regression model, which showed ADR was significantly impacted by insufflation method.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbon dioxide insufflation is known to reduce abdominal pain, postprocedural duration of abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and analgesic requirements. This study represents for the first time the beneficial effect of carbon dioxide insufflation upon the key quality colonoscopy indicator of ADR.

Colonoscopy quality requisites for selecting surveillance intervals: A World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Recommendation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Different post-polypectomy guidelines underscore the need for high-quality baseline colonoscopy before appropriate surveillance recommendations can be made. Standards for colonoscopy practice have been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. Our aims were to define standards for the procedural practice of colonoscopy in this particular setting of surveillance and to generate a colonoscopy procedural quality checklist that could be implemented in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was based on the Delphi process methodology. The baseline questionnaire included 12 domains and 56 individual statements. A total of three rounds were carried out between September 2015 and March 2016 until consensus or lack of consensus was reached.

RESULTS

In total, consensus was reached on 27 statements in nine domains. High levels of agreement and consensus were reached that: (i) colonoscopy should be considered complete only if the whole cecum has been inspected, including the ileocecal valve and the appendiceal orifice (agreement score 4.63; degree of consensus 82%); (ii) quality of the bowel preparation should always be reported (agreement score 4.9, degree of consensus 94%); and (iii) it is preferable to use a segmental validated scale (agreement score 4.36, degree of consensus 86%). Consensus was also reached regarding multiple statements related to documentation of polyps and their resection. Finally, a colonoscopy quality checklist was drafted.

CONCLUSION

Consensus on different statements regarding quality of colonoscopy has been reached. Based on this consensus, we propose a colonoscopy quality checklist that would be helpful for post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

It is difficult to resist the undeniable allure of screening as a means to diagnose common, potentially serious diseases before their natural history reaches an incurable stage. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a classical example where the benefits seem to be within reach: we have technologies available that allow its diagnosis before symptoms or signs develop, at a reasonable cost, and using methods acceptable by a significant percentage of the population.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]).

METHODS

A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

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.

Temporal trends in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates in 50- to 74-year-old persons: a population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after colonoscopy, termed postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs), arise primarily due to missed or inadequately treated neoplasms during colonoscopy. Introduction of multiple quality indicators and technological advances to colonoscopy practice should have reduced the PCCRC rate over time. We assessed temporal trends in the population rate of PCCRC as a measure of changing colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of persons aged 50 to 74 years without advanced risk factors for CRC who underwent complete colonoscopy in Ontario, Canada between 1996 and 2010. We defined the PCCRC rate as the proportion of individuals diagnosed with CRC within 36 months of colonoscopy that had PCCRC. We compared age-adjusted and sex-adjusted rates of PCCRC over time based on 3 periods (1996-2001, 2001-2006 and 2006-2010) and assessed the independent association between time period and PCCRC risk through multivariable regression, with respect to all PCCRCs, proximal PCCRC and distal PCCRC.

RESULTS

There was a marked increase in colonoscopy volumes over the study period, particularly in younger age groups and non-hospital settings. Among 1,093,658 eligible persons the PCCRC rate remained stable at approximately 8% over the 15-year study period. The adjusted odds of PCCRC, distal PCCRC and proximal PCCRC, comparing the 2006 to 2010 period with the 1996 to 2001 period, were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.31), 1.11 (95% CI, 0.91-1.34), and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.94-1.38), respectively. Temporal trends in PCCRC risk did not differ by endoscopist specialty or institutional setting after covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSION

The PCCRC rate in Ontario has remained consistently high over time. Widespread initiatives are needed to improve colonoscopy quality.

Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: A KASID multicenter study

Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in missed colorectal adenoma that can evolve into interval colorectal cancer. This study aims to identify the predictive factors associated with missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy. A total of 441 patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy and who had repeat colonoscopy within two years were included from 2007 to 2014 in six tertiary hospitals. Suboptimal bowel preparation was defined as 'poor' according to the Aronchick scale or a score ≤ 1 in at least one segment or total score < 6 according to the Boston bowel preparation scale. Of 441 patients, mean age at initial colonoscopy was 59.1 years, and 69.2% patients were male. The mean interval from initial to repeat colonoscopy was 14.1 months. The per-patient adenoma miss rate (AMR) was 42.4% for any adenoma and 5.4% for advanced adenoma. When the association between baseline clinical characteristics and missed lesions on repeat colonoscopy was analyzed, dyslipidemia (odds ratio [OR], 5.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-23.66; P = 0.034), and high-risk adenoma (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 1.12-17.68; P = 0.034) on initial colonoscopy were independent risk factors for missed advanced adenoma. In patients with suboptimal bowel preparation, dyslipidemia and high-risk adenoma on initial colonoscopy were independently predictive of missed advanced adenoma on repeat colonoscopy.

Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: A KASID multicenter study

Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in missed colorectal adenoma that can evolve into interval colorectal cancer. This study aims to identify the predictive factors associated with missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation at initial colonoscopy. A total of 441 patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy and who had repeat colonoscopy within two years were included from 2007 to 2014 in six tertiary hospitals. Suboptimal bowel preparation was defined as ‘poor’ according to the Aronchick scale or a score ≤ 1 in at least one segment or total score < 6 according to the Boston bowel preparation scale. Of 441 patients, mean age at initial colonoscopy was 59.1 years, and 69.2% patients were male. The mean interval from initial to repeat colonoscopy was 14.1 months. The per-patient adenoma miss rate (AMR) was 42.4% for any adenoma and 5.4% for advanced adenoma. When the association between baseline clinical characteristics and missed lesions on repeat colonoscopy was analyzed, dyslipidemia (odds ratio [OR], 5.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–23.66; P = 0.034), and high-risk adenoma (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 1.12–17.68; P = 0.034) on initial colonoscopy were independent risk factors for missed advanced adenoma. In patients with suboptimal bowel preparation, dyslipidemia and high-risk adenoma on initial colonoscopy were independently predictive of missed advanced adenoma on repeat colonoscopy.

The right colon challenge

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the fourth cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. In an attempt to raise awareness on this situation, and to implement preventive measures, March 31st has been established as international colorectal cancer awareness day. Our country, with the Spanish "Alianza para la Prevención del Cáncer de Colon", pioneered in 2008 an institution that brought together scientific and civil societies to pursue this goal. A stabilization, even a decrease in the incidence and mortality of this condition has been reported in western countries for the last few years, which may be attributed to a number of highly relevant factors.

Importance of endoscopist quality metrics for findings at surveillance colonoscopy: The detection-surveillance paradox

Background

Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies based exclusively on findings at baseline colonoscopy. This recommendation leads to the paradox that the higher the baseline colonoscopy quality, the more surveillance colonoscopies will be indicated according to current guidelines.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on follow-up findings of different quality metrics of the endoscopist performing the baseline colonoscopy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included individuals with advanced adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR) were determined for 44 endoscopists. Surveillance colonoscopies were checked after systematic tracking.

Results

A total of 574 individuals were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, of whom 270 received a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients whose baseline colonoscopy endoscopist had an ADR lower than the median of 33.8% had significantly higher rates of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (13.1% vs 4.0%; p = 0.001). On univariate analysis, high-risk advanced adenomas at baseline (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.97) and ADR (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99) showed a significant relationship with advanced neoplasia at surveillance. In a multivariate Cox model, the ADR of the endoscopist who performed the baseline colonoscopy was the only independent predictor of risk for developing advanced neoplasia at follow-up (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the risk of identifying advanced adenomas at follow-up is closely related to the quality metrics of the endoscopist who performs the baseline colonoscopy.

Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy

OPINION STATEMENT

Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures. It is the gold standard examination for work-up of colonic symptoms, for follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests and for detection and removal of neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopy is a complex and invasive procedure with a potential not only for colorectal cancer prevention, but also for serious complications. Numerous factors may affect the balance of benefit versus harm of colonoscopy, including the performance of the endoscopist. These factors are commonly called quality indicators. As an increasing number of countries are recommending the general population to undergo colorectal cancer screening, the quality of colonoscopy should be considered a public health concern. Key quality indicators have been identified, and several professional organizations have issued recommendation statements to promote high-quality colonoscopy. To achieve high quality, these key quality indicators must be monitored, results must be analysed, and measures must be undertaken to correct substandard performance. High-quality training in colonoscopy and polypectomy should be a quality assurance priority.

Endoscopic Eradication Therapy in Barrett's Esophagus

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), the standard of care for treatment of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and early neoplasia, consists of a combination of endoscopic resection and ablative modalities. Resection techniques primarily include endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Resection of nodular disease is generally followed by one of multiple ablative therapies among which radiofrequency ablation has the best evidence supporting safety and efficacy. These advanced endoscopic procedures require both experience and expertise in the cognitive and procedural aspects of EET. However, very few formal programs exist that teach endoscopists the necessary skills to perform EET in a safe, standardized, and efficacious manner. Case volume at both the endoscopist and center level has been shown to impact clinical outcomes based on limited data. As a result, some recent guidelines endorse case volume as a measure of competency. Quality indicators, which can be used as benchmarks for training and as part of pay for quality initiatives, have recently been derived for EET. However, quality metrics in EET have not been widely accepted, nor are they broadly used currently. While the efficacy of EET for BE is established, there is a need for application of quality metrics to both assure adequate training in these procedures, as well as to assess treatment outcomes. A standardized EET training curriculum during endoscopic training, with competency assessment of both new clinicians and endoscopists in practice has potential to improve care in EET.

A survey-based analysis on endoscopic quality indicators compliance among Spanish endoscopists

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopy plays a key role for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders. Therefore, quality indicators have been widely proposed in order to optimize endoscopic practice. The aims of this study, promoted by the Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases (SEPD), were to assess the knowledge and compliance to endoscopy quality indicators among Spanish gastroenterologists.

METHODS

A 31-questionnaire survey was created based on the endoscopy quality indicators proposed by international guidelines. The survey was distributed among Spanish gastroenterologists who are members of the society. Using only fully completed surveys, a descriptive analysis was performed. Those factors related with a suboptimal quality performance were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,543 surveys were sent and 281 (18.2%) were received completed. Based on the answers obtained, the management of 14 (70%) out of 20 assessed quality indicators was poor: 5 (83.3%) out of 6 pre-procedure items, 7 (58.3%) out of 12 intra-procedure items and 2 (100%) out of 2 post-procedure items.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of Spanish endoscopists do not comply with main endoscopic quality indicators. Factors such as "young" age, public setting, no colorectal cancer screening program and low volume of procedures/week are related to a poorer management of the assessed quality indicators and should be the target for future formative activities.