Key quality indicators in colonoscopy

EVALUATION OF QUALITY INDICATORS OF SCREENING COLONOSCOPY PERFORMED IN A PRIVATE QUARTERNARY HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in Brazil, despite the availability of screening methods that reduce its risk. Colonoscopy is the only screening method that also allows therapeutic procedures. The proper screening through colonoscopy is linked to the quality of the exam, which can be evaluated according to quality criteria recommended by various institutions. Among the factors, the most used is the Adenoma Detection Rate, which should be at least 25% for general population.

AIMS

To evaluate the quality of the screening colonoscopies performed in a quarternary private Brazilian hospital.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study evaluating the quality indicators of colonoscopies performed at a private center since its inauguration. Only asymptomatic patients aged over 45 years who underwent screening colonoscopy were included. The primary outcome was the Adenoma Detection Rate, and secondary outcomes included polyps detection rate and safety profile. Subanalyses evaluated the correlation of endoscopic findings with gender and age and the evolution of detection rates over the years.

RESULTS

A total of 2,144 patients were include with a mean age of 60.54 years-old. Polyps were diagnosed in 68.6% of the procedures. Adenoma detection rate was 46.8%, with an increasing rate over the years, mainly in males. A low rate of adverse events was reported in 0.23% of the cases, with no need for surgical intervention and no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that high quality screening colonoscopy is possible when performed by experienced endoscopists and trained nurses, under an adequate infrastructure.

Complications of colonoscopy surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome - 33 years of follow up

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary autosomal dominant condition, with an increased lifetime risk of developing malignancies including colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines differ in recommended colonoscopy-surveillance intervals from 1 to 2 years. Although colonoscopy is considered a safe procedure, there are risks of severe adverse events (SAEs), such as perforation and bleeding, as well as adverse events (AEs), such as abdominal discomfort and post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal infections. Colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation rates have been reported 0.17% and 0.11%, respectively. However, there are insufficient data regarding complications of colonoscopy-surveillance for LS patients. This study aims to investigate the risk of AEs among LS patients during colonoscopy in the Stockholm region.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes 351 LS patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance at the Karolinska University Hospital, August 1989 - April 2021. Data from endoscopic surveillance colonoscopies were extracted from patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Of 1873 endoscopies in 351 LS patients, 12 complications (AEs) were documented within 30 days (0.64%) and with a total of 3 bleedings (SAEs, 0.16%). No perforations were identified.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy surveillance for LS patients shows a comparatively low risk of AEs per-examination. Colonoscopy complications per-patient, including both SAEs and AEs, show a significantly higher risk. Colonoscopy complications only including SAEs, show a comparatively low risk. Understanding the lifetime risk of surveillance-related colonoscopy complications is important when designing targeted surveillance programmes.

Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with 4 key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas, non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI practitioner, comparing their outcomes with those of GI providers.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using a P value of less than .05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all P values were 2-sided.

RESULTS

No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged from 98% to 100% for cecal intubation; 97.4% to 100% for bowel preparation; 57.4% to 88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7% to 62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10 to 0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of this analysis, we can expect non-GI practitioner to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI practitioner given the performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.

Risk factors for synchronous high-risk polyps in patients with colorectal cancer

Purpose

Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients may experience inadequate preoperative colonoscopy due to bowel obstruction or inadequate bowel preparation, leading to potential oversight of other polyps. We aimed to identify risk factors for CRC complicated with synchronous high-risk polyps.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 6,674 CRC patients from December 2014 to September 2018 was conducted. High-risk polyps were defined as adenomas or serrated polyps that were ≥10 mm, or with tubulovillous/villous components or high-grade dysplasia. All other polyps were defined as low-risk polyps. Patients with complete pathological and clinical information were categorized into three groups: the no polyp group, the low-risk polyp group, and the high-risk polyp group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all potential risk factors.

Results

Among the 4,659 eligible patients, 848 (18.2%) were found to have low-risk polyps, while 675 (14.5%) were diagnosed with high-risk polyps. In a multivariate logistic regression model, compared to patients without polyps, those with synchronous high-risk polyps were more likely to be male (OR = 2.07), aged 50 or older (OR = 2.77), have early-stage tumors (OR = 1.46), colon tumors (OR = 1.53), NRAS mutant tumors (OR = 1.66), and BRAF wild-type tumors (OR = 2.43).

Conclusion

Our study has identified several risk factors associated with the presence of synchronous high-risk polyps in CRC patients. Based on these findings, we recommend that patients who exhibit these high-risk factors undergo early follow-up of colonoscopy to detect synchronous polyps early.

GI genius endoscopy module: a clinical profile

INTRODUCTION

The identification of early-stage colorectal cancers (CRC) and the resection of pre-cancerous neoplastic lesions through colonoscopy allows to decrease both CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy miss rates up to 26% for adenomas and 9% for advanced adenomas have been reported. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been emerging as easy-to-use tools, potentially lowering the risk of missing lesions.

AREAS COVERED

This review paper focuses on GI Genius device (Medtronic Co. Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) a computer-assisted tool designed to assist endoscopists during standard white-light colonoscopies in detecting mucosal lesions.

EXPERT OPINION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that GI Genius is a safe and effective tool for improving adenoma detection, especially in CRC screening and surveillance colonoscopies. However, its impact seems to be less significant among experienced endoscopists and in real-world clinical scenarios compared to the controlled conditions of RCTs. Furthermore, it appears that GI Genius mainly enhances the detection of non-advanced, small polyps, but does not significantly impact the identification of advanced and difficult-to-detect adenoma. When using GI Genius, no complications were documented. Only a small number of studies reported an increased in withdrawal time or the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.

How to implement adverse events as a quality indicator in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Quality improvement through the registration of endoscopy-related adverse events (AEs) has been recognized by major international endoscopy societies as an important quality indicator. The theory behind this is easier to approve than its implementation in daily practice. The results of many valuable attempts have been published in the literature, mainly highlighting the diverse hurdles trying to capture events related to endoscopy and the sedation used for endoscopic procedures. The current review discusses the difficulties encountered attempting to register AEs and incidents related to endoscopic procedures. Government-driven and financed health-care databases with automated coupling of specific data seem the only efficient way to implement endoscopy-related AEs and outcomes on a prospective and complete basis. This will not only allow continuous confidential feedback to endoscopists in relation to the pooled national benchmark data, but also follow-up in time through data-driven credentialing aiming to progressively optimize these benchmark data.

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.

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658).

FINDINGS

This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%).

INTERPRETATION

AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy is considered the most effective tool for reducing colorectal cancer-related morbidity, the age at which average-risk individuals begin colonoscopic screening is undetermined. This study aimed to compare the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates according to age and sex in a large average-risk population in the rural areas of Eastern China.

METHODS

This observational, single-center, retrospective study included patients with average colorectal cancer risk and examined the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates using age intervals of 5 years. We also compared the size and age of patients with and without advanced adenoma.

RESULTS

We included 18 928 patients with a median age of 54 years (range 15-90 years), including 10 143 men and 8785 women. The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates were 17.08% and 5.24%, respectively, and increased with age in the whole population. The adenoma detection rates increased from 8.97% (aged 40-44) to 14.98% (aged 45-49) and 6.24% (aged 45-49) to 11.00% (aged 50-54) in men and women (both P < .001), respectively. The advanced adenoma detection rates increased from 2.19% (aged 40-44) to 4.76% (aged 45-49) and 1.89% (aged 45-49) to 3.13% (aged 50-54) in men (P = .002) and women (P = .056), respectively. Patients with advanced adenomas were significantly older than those with non-advanced adenomas (P < .001). The tumors in the advanced adenoma group were significantly larger than those in the non-advanced adenoma group (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates increased significantly in average-risk population aged 45 years and older, especially in men.