Development and validation of a prediction model for adenoma detection during screening and surveillance colonoscopy with comparison to actual adenoma detection rates

Key quality indicators in colonoscopy

Many quality indicators have been proposed for colonoscopy, but most colonoscopists and endoscopy groups focus on measuring the adenoma detection rate and the cecal intubation rate. Use of proper screening and surveillance intervals is another accepted key indicator but it is seldom evaluated in clinical practice. Bowel preparation efficacy and polyp resection skills are areas that are emerging as potential key or priority indicators. This review summarizes and provides an update on key performance indicators for colonoscopy quality.

Colonoscope retraction technique and predicting adenoma detection rate: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The success of preventing colorectal cancer relies on the expertise of the colonoscopists. Studies suggest that the retraction technique is a powerful indicator of expertise in distinguishing endoscopists with various adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We aimed to develop a retraction technique score and explore the correlation between endoscopists' retraction technique and their ADRs.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter study, 8 colonoscopist nurses and physicians with various ADRs were included. Data from patients admitted for a colonoscopy, as part of the Danish nationwide screening program, were gathered directly from the Olympus ScopeGuide system (UPD-3; Olympus Optical, Tokyo, Japan) providing XYZ-coordinates from the coils along the length of the colonoscope. Motor skill measures were developed based on tip retraction, retraction efficiency, and retraction distance. The principal component analysis was used to study the association among the 3 measures and the historical ADR to create a combined score, the colonoscopy retraction score (CoRS).

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-three recordings were analyzed. We demonstrated a significant and strong correlation between CoRS and ADR (.90, P < .01). Conversely, withdrawal time did not correlate significantly with ADR (.33, P = .42). In procedures without polypectomies or biopsy sampling, a significant and strong correlation was found between CoRS and ADR (.88, P < .01) and between withdrawal time and ADR (.75, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a novel, real-time computerized and unbiased assessment tool for colonoscopy withdrawal. CoRS strongly correlated with ADR with and without therapeutic interventions during withdrawal and could be used to ensure quality instead of minimal withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03587935.).

Case-mix adjustment to compare colonoscopy performance between endoscopy centers: a nationwide registry study

BACKGROUND : Nonmodifiable patient and endoscopy characteristics might influence colonoscopy performance. Differences in these so-called case-mix factors are likely to exist between endoscopy centers. This study aimed to examine the importance of case-mix adjustment when comparing performance between endoscopy centers. METHODS : Prospectively collected data recorded in the Dutch national colonoscopy registry between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adequate bowel preparation rate (ABPR) were analyzed. Additionally, polyp detection rate (PDR) was studied in screening colonoscopies following a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Variation in case-mix factors between endoscopy centers and expected outcomes for each performance measure were calculated per endoscopy center based on case-mix factors (sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist [ASA] score, indication) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:  363 840 colonoscopies were included from 51 endoscopy centers. Mean percentages per endoscopy center were significantly different for age > 65 years, male patients, ASA ≥ III, and diagnostic colonoscopies (all P < 0.001). In the FIT-positive screening population, significant differences were observed between endoscopy centers for age > 65 years, male patients, and ASA ≥ III (all P ≤ 0.001). The expected CIR, ABPR, and PDR ranged from 95.0 % to 96.9 %, from 93.6 % to 96.4 %, and from 76.2 % to 79.1 %, respectively. Age, sex, ASA classification, and indication were significant case-mix factors for CIR and ABPR. In the FIT-positive screening population, age, sex, and ASA classification were significant case-mix factors for PDR. CONCLUSION:  Our findings emphasize the importance of considering case-mix adjustment when comparing colonoscopy performance measures between endoscopy centers.

Racial Disparities and Diagnosis-to-Treatment Time Among Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in South Carolina

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosis-to-treatment interval is an important quality measure that is recognized by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons and the National Quality Measures for Breast Care. The aim of this study was to assess factors related to delays in receiving breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study (2002 to 2010) used data from the South Carolina Central Cancer Registry (SCCCR) and Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA) to examine racial differences in diagnosis-to-treatment time (in days), with adjuvant hormone receipt, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy assessed separately. Chi-square tests, and logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to compare diagnosis-to-treatment days.

RESULTS

Black women on average received adjuvant hormone therapy, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy 25, 8, 7, and 3 days later than their White counterparts, respectively. Black women with local stage cancer had later time to surgery (OR: 1.6; CI: 1.2-2.2) compared with White women with local stage cancer. Black women living in rural areas had higher odds (OR: 2.0; CI: 1.1-3.7) of receiving late chemotherapy compared with White women living in rural areas. Unmarried Black women also had greater risk (OR: 2.0; CI: 1.0-4.0) of receiving late radiotherapy compared to married White women.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve timely receipt of effective BrCA treatments, programs aimed at reducing racial disparities may need to target subgroups of Black breast cancer patients based on their social determinants of health and geographic residence.

Effect of Endocuff use on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection.

AIM

To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC).

METHODS

Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated.

RESULTS

We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι² = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι² = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι² = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι² = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι² = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it.

CONCLUSION

EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.

Meta-analysis indicates that add-on devices and new endoscopes reduce colonoscopy adenoma miss rate

INTRODUCTION

A variety of add-on devices and new-generation endoscopes have the potential to detect lesions 'hidden' behind colonic folds. We measured the effect of these new modalities on colonoscopy's lesions miss rates by a meta-analysis of data from individual studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed literature searches in Medline and Cochrane Library for back-to-back randomized-controlled trials evaluating colonoscope add-on devices and new endoscopes in terms of lesions miss rates. The effect size on study outcomes is shown as relative risk (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

We identified nine tandem studies with 1594 patients: seven evaluating add-on devices (one with cap, two with Endocuff, one with Endorings, one with Third-Eye Retroscope, two with G-EYE endoscope) and two evaluating the full-spectrum endoscopy system (FUSE) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). Overall, adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly lower with add-on devices/FUSE [0.33 (0.22-0.50), P<0.00001] compared with CC, the effect being similar among the add-on devices [0.35 (0.22-0.57), P<0.0001] and the FUSE [0.26 (0.15-0.46), P<0.00001] studies, respectively. Advanced AMR and polyp miss rate (PMR) were also significantly lower using add-on devices/FUSE [0.30 (0.21-0.44), P<0.0001 and 0.31 (0.13-0.79), P=0.01, respectively]. Use of add-on devices/FUSE scope was associated with significantly lower AMR and PMR in the proximal colon and it was associated with shortening of the colonoscopy surveillance interval.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that AMR, advanced AMR, and PMR are significantly lower using add-on to colonoscope devices and the full-spectrum endoscopy systems compared with CC. Heterogeneity among the included studies and the small number of detected advanced adenomas call for cautious interpretation of the results.