Can I improve my adenoma detection rate?

An Italian prospective multicenter study on colonoscopy practice and quality: What has changed in the last 10 years

BACKGROUND

A relevant number of adenomas can be missed during colonoscopy.

AIMS

Assess the current status of colonoscopy procedures in Italian centers.

METHODS

A prospective observational study involving 17 hospitals (34 endoscopists) included consecutive patients undergoing standard colonoscopy. In the first phase, endoscopists performed consecutive colonoscopies. In the second phase, retraining via an online learning platform was planned, while in the third phase data were collected analogously to phase 1.

RESULTS

A total of 3,504 patients were enrolled. Overall, a BBPS score ≥6 was obtained in 95.6% of cases (94.8% and 96.9% in the pre- and post-training phases, respectively). 88.4% of colonoscopies had a withdrawal time ≥6 min (88.2% and 88.7% in the pre- and post-training phases). Median adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 39.1%, with no significant differences between the pre- and post-training phases (40.1% vs 36.9%; P = 0.83). In total, 81% of endoscopists had a ADR performance above the 25% threshold.

CONCLUSION

High colonoscopy quality standards are achieved by the Italian hospitals involved. Quality improvement initiatives and repeated module-based colonoscopy-training have been promoted in Italy during the last decade, which appear to have had a significant impact on quality colonoscopy metrics together with the activation of colorectal cancer screening programs.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Commercial Bowel Preparations in Ambulatory Patients Presenting for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is associated with reduced adenoma detection. However, limited research has examined the impact of different commercial bowel preparations (CBPs) on IBP and adenoma detection. We aim to determine whether type of CBP used is associated with IBP or adenoma detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated outpatient, screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed in the Cleveland Clinic health system between January 2011 and June 2017. IBP was defined by the Aronchick scale. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the association between CBP type and IBP and adenoma detection. Fixed effects were defined as demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and colonoscopy factors. Random effect of individual endoscopist was considered.

RESULTS

Of 153,639 colonoscopies, 75,874 records met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54; 50% were female; 17.7% had IBP, and adenoma detection rate was 32.6%. In adjusted analyses, compared to GoLYTELY, only NuLYTELY [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.60, 0.72)] and SuPREP [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.40, 0.69)] were associated with reduced IBP. Adenoma detection did not vary based on the type of bowel preparation used.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients referred for screening or surveillance colonoscopy, choice of CBP was not associated with adenoma detection. Decisions about CBP should be based on other factors, such as tolerability, cost, or safety.

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.

Methods

A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I²=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.

Conclusions

Monitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

Segmental Withdrawal During Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Increase Adenoma Detection Rate

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare a standard versus segmental withdrawal during screening colonoscopy and its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

METHODS

We performed a single-center clinical trial of average-risk patients 50 years of age and older undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients were randomized into four groups: a standard withdrawal of at least 6 or 8 minutes and a segmental withdrawal, in which ≥3 or ≥4 minutes were dedicated to the right side of the colon, with a minimum withdrawal time of at least 6 or 8 minutes, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 311 patients in the study. There was no difference in ADR between the standard and segmental groups (relative ratio [RR] 0.91, P = 0.50), even after stratifying for right-sided adenomas. During standard withdrawal, an increased continuous withdrawal time was associated with a higher ADR (RR 1.08, P <0.001) and total adenomas per patient (RR 1.12, P < 0.001). A binary analysis of ≥8 minutes or <8 minutes withdrawal was associated with an increased adenomas per colonoscopy (RR 1.86, P = 0.04). These differences were not observed in the segmental group.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was no benefit from a segmental withdrawal protocol on ADR, but this may have been the result of the inherent limitations in the study design. After sensitivity analysis, a segmental withdrawal protocol led to an improvement in the detection of adenomas per colonoscopy and polyps per colonoscopy. A larger sample size is needed to confirm these findings.

Adherence to Recommendations and Quality of Endoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Long-Standing Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Long-standing ulcerative colitis has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines recommend endoscopic CRC screening after 8 years of disease duration. The objectives of our study were to assess the adherence to recommendations and the quality of endoscopic procedure in long-standing ulcerative colitis.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. We selected patients included in the Swiss IBD cohort with a disease duration of ≥8 years and an extension above the rectosigmoid junction. The complementary medical chart review focused on endoscopy and associated histological reports in 8 Swiss centers. Descriptive analyses focused on patients and their colonoscopies.

Results

309 colonoscopies were conducted among 116 patients with the following characteristics: women 47%, mean age at diagnosis 31 years, and pancolitis disease extent in 65.5% of cases; 38.8% of patients had a first screening colonoscopy <8 years, 13.8% between 8 and 10 years, and 47.4% >10 years. Cecal intubation was performed in 94.5% of cases, and bowel preparation was good to excellent in 61.5% of endoscopies. Chromoendoscopy was used in 7.4% of cases, and the mean withdrawal time was 16.4 min. Dysplasia was found in 6.2% of cases.

Conclusion

Despite current international recommendations, a significant number of patients did not receive a proper endoscopic surveillance. An increased use of chromoendoscopy, monitoring of withdrawal time, and appropriate bowel preparation would increase the quality of CRC screening. The adherence to screening guidelines and endoscopic quality should be promoted and standardized.

Advances in endoscopy for colorectal polyp detection and classification

While colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colon cancer screening, recent advancements in endoscopes have allowed for improved visualization of the colonic mucosa and improved polyp detection rates. Newer technologies also allow for assessment of structural changes for polyp discrimination and determination of histologic type. Classification of polyps prevents the need for a histopathologic report, which requires the additional time and expertise of a pathologist and adds to the overall cost. This review considered advances in endoscopic technologies reported in PubMed over the past 12 years. Technologies that allow for increased visual field of colonic mucosa and may lead to improved colon polyp detection rates include cap-assisted colonoscopy, RetroView, extra-wide-angle view colonoscope, full-spectrum endoscopy, Third Eye Retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE balloon colonoscope, EndoRings, and Endocuff. Image-enhancing methods allow for pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions, which enables the physician to classify colorectal polyps according to certain polyp characteristics. Image-enhancing methods include chromoendoscopy, autofluorescence, and virtual chromoendoscopy, including narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, flexible spectral imaging chromoendoscopy, and STORZ professional image enhancement systems. In addition, advancements have been made in in vivo microscopic evaluation of colonic epithelium, including confocal laser endomicroscopy, endocytoscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, and autofluorescence spectroscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy also has a role in colon polyp detection and classification. The advancements in polyp detection and classification have great promise for earlier detection and removal of advanced adenomas before they advance to colorectal cancer.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

An Adjusted Level of Adenoma Detection Rate is Necessary for Adults Below 50 Years Old

BACKGROUND

Although adenoma prevalence is lower in younger people compared with screening-aged adults 50 years old and above, there is no adjustment recommendation for the target adenoma detection rate (ADR) in young people. Herein, we estimated a different target ADR for adults below 50 years old based on screening colonoscopy findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Asymptomatic, average-risk adults below 50 years old who underwent screening colonoscopy were enrolled at 12 endoscopy centers in Korea between February 2006 and March 2012. Screening colonoscopies were stratified into low or high ADR groups with ADR levels of 20% and 25%, respectively.

RESULTS

The ADRs from 12 endoscopy centers ranged from 12.1% to 43.8% (median ADR, 24.1%) based on 5272 young adults receiving screening colonoscopies. Using 20% as an ADR level, the risks for metachronous adenoma and advanced adenoma were significantly higher in the low ADR group than the high ADR group (35.4% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001; 8.3% vs. 3.7%, P=0.001, respectively). However, using ADR level of 25%, the risk for metachronous neoplasia was similar in the high and low ADR groups in young adults according to screening colonoscopy. In subgroup analysis, similar findings were found in males, but not in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal target ADR may be different between younger and older populations, and the adoption of a 20% target ADR could be used as a performance indicator for young populations.

New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time.

RESULTS

From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.

Factors defining expertise in screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 There is very little literature defining characteristics of expert endoscopists. It is hypothesised that previously undetermined human factors may correlate with high performance in screening colonoscopists. The aim of this study was to determine factors contributing towards expertise in screening colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A focus group was used to hypothesise skills considered to be relevant to high performance in colonoscopy. The skills were then ranked in order of importance by an independent group of screening colonoscopists for both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. Twenty screening colonoscopists subsequently participated in individual semi-structured interviews to explore participants' views of expertise and the factors contributing to it. Data extracted from the interview transcripts were used to identify the thematic framework associated with expertise.

RESULTS

The 5 initial highest-ranked themes were low complication rates, high adenoma detection rates, interpersonal skills with staff, communication skills, and manner with patients. Interviewees considered technical skills (20/20), previous experience of colonoscopy (19/20), judgment/decision-making (18/20), communication (18/20), teamwork (15/20), resources (11/20) and leadership (8/20) to be the most important themes related to expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

 Both technical and non-technical abilities are considered essential components of expertise by experienced colonoscopists. Further research into targeted interventions to improve the rate of acquisition of these skills in training endoscopists may be useful in improving performance.

Endocuff assisted colonoscopy significantly increases sessile serrated adenoma detection in veterans

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of CRC. There are many colonoscopy quality measures and among these the adenoma detection rate (ADR) has demonstrated a significant impact in reducing mortality from CRC. The primary aim of our study was to compare ADR and distribution of polyp type in patients undergoing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) in a VA system.

METHODS

Retrospective data was collected from 496 patients who underwent routine screening, surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopies either via SC from January 6, 2014 through March 12, 2014 or EAC from September 24, 2014 through February 19, 2015. A total of 54 patients were excluded based on a personal history of CRC and prior resection, incomplete colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation, and removal or loss of Endocuff (EC). Primary outcomes measured and compared were ADR and types of polyps found.

RESULTS

The overall ADR in the EAC group was higher at 59.91% versus 50.66% for SC, accounting for a 9% increase (P=0.0508). EAC was able to detect a total of 59 sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/Ps) compared to SC only detecting 8 (P≤0.0001). There was a significant increase in the SSA/P detection rate with EAC at 15% versus 3% in the SC group (P≤0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EAC significantly increases the detection of SSA/P and has shown a trend in improving ADR in our veteran population.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.

Impact of bowel preparation type on the quality of colonoscopy: a multicenter community-based study

Background

High-quality bowel preparation is crucial for achieving the goals of colonoscopy. However, choosing a bowel preparation in clinical practice can be challenging because of the many formulations. This study aims to assess the impact the type of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy in a community hospital setting.

Methods

A retrospective, observational study was conducted utilizing a colonoscopy screening/surveillance database in central Illinois during the period of January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014. Patients without bowel preparation assessment were excluded from this study. Controlling for the confounders, generalized linear models were used to estimate the adjusted impact [odds ratio (OR)] of bowel preparation type on the quality of preparation (excellent, good, fair, and poor), and on the detection of advanced adenoma. The association between the time of withdrawal after insertion and the quality of preparation was also examined using a linear model.

Results

A total of 28,368 colonoscopies; half the patients were male, and the average age was 61±9 years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) was used in the majority (70.2%) of bowel preparations, followed by sodium sulfate (21.4%), sodium phosphate (2.5%), magnesium sulfate (0.4%), and others. Compared with PEG, magnesium sulfate had a poorer quality of bowel preparations (OR=0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.9; p<0.05), whereas the quality of bowel preparation was significantly improved by using sodium sulfate (OR=5.7, 95% CI 5.4–6.1; p<0.001) and sodium phosphate (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.8–2.5; p<0.001). For those who had adequate bowel preparation, the better quality of preparation significantly increased the detection rate of advanced adenoma (5.0, 3.6, and 2.9% for excellent, good, and fair, respectively).

Conclusion

When possible, sodium sulfate–based preparations should be recommended in the community setting for colonoscopy because of their high quality of bowel preparation.

Progress in research of colorectal intraepithelial neoplasia and adenoma

Colorectal cancer is a common malignant tumor in the digestive system, and the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer has been the focus of its prevention and control. Colorectal intraepithelial neoplasia and adenoma are considered to be the most important precancerous lesions of colorectal cancer. In recent years, with the development of biological medicine, genetics,

and other disciplines, many studies have explored the relationship between intraepithelial neoplasia and adenoma and colorectal cancer, and some new research progress has been achieved to provide some guidance for the future clinical screening, regular follow-up and chemical prevention. However, it remains to be studied how colorectal intraepithelial neoplasia and adenoma form and evolve to colorectal cancer.