Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats

Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

Effect of Body Mass Index on Cecal Intubation Time During Unsedated Colonoscopy: Variation Across the Learning Stages of an Endoscopist

BACKGROUND Body mass index (BMI) and endoscopists' experiences can be associated with cecal intubation time (CIT), but such associations are controversial. This study aimed to clarify the association between BMI and CIT during unsedated colonoscopy at 3 learning stages of a single endoscopist. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 1500 consecutive patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy by 1 endoscopist at our department from December 11, 2020, to August 21, 2022, were reviewed. They were divided into 3 learning stages according to the number of colonoscopies performed by 1 endoscopist, including intermediate (501-1000 colonoscopies), experienced (1001-1500 colonoscopies), and senior stages (1501-2000 colonoscopies). Variables that significantly correlated with CIT were identified by Spearman rank correlation analyses and then included in multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS Overall, 1233 patients were included. Among them, 392, 420, and 421 patients were divided into intermediate, experienced, and senior stages, respectively. Median CIT was 7.83, 6.38, and 5.58 min at intermediate, experienced, and senior stages, respectively (P.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Guidelines for the management of ulcerative colitis. Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the Polish National Consultant in Gastroenterology

This paper is an update of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology and the Polish Society of Gastroenterology from 2013. It contains 49 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment, both pharmacological and surgical, of ulcerative colitis in adults. The guidelines were developed by a group of experts appointed by the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the National Consultant in the field of Gastroenterology. The methodology related to the GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of available evidence and the strength of therapeutic recommendations. The degree of expert support for the proposed statements was assessed on a 6-point Likert scale. Voting results, together with comments, are included with each statement.

Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Ensuring colonoscopy procedure quality is vital to the success of screening and surveillance programmes for bowel cancer in Australia. However, the data on the performance of quality metrics, through adequate adenoma detection, bowel preparation, and procedure completion rates, in the Australian public sector is limited. Understanding these can inform quality improvement to further strengthen our capacity for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.

AIM

To determine the quality of colonoscopy in Australian teaching hospitals and their association with proceduralist specialty, trainee involvement, and location.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 2443 consecutive colonoscopy procedure reports from 1 January to 1 April, 2018 from five public teaching tertiary hospitals in Australia (median 60 years old, 49% male). Data for bowel preparation quality, procedure completion rates, and detection rates of clinically significant adenomas, conventional adenomas, and serrated lesions was collected and compared to national criteria for quality in colonoscopy. Participating hospital, proceduralist specialty, and trainee involvement indicators were used for stratification. Data was analysed using Chi-squared tests of independence, Mann-Whitney U, One-way ANOVA, and multivariate binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-two point two percent (n = 1276) and 43.3% (n = 1057) were performed by medical and surgical proceduralists respectively, whilst 29.8% (n = 728) involved a trainee. Inadequate bowel preparation affected 7.3% of all procedures. The procedure completion rate was 95.1%, which increased to 97.5% after adjustment for bowel preparation quality. The pooled cancer, adenoma, and serrated lesion detection rates for all five hospitals were 3.5%, 40%, and 5.9% respectively. Assessed hospitals varied significantly by patient age (P < 0.001), work-force composition (P < 0.001), adequacy of bowel preparation (P < 0.001), and adenoma detection rate (P < 0.001). Two hospitals (40%) did not meet all national criteria for quality, due to a procedure completion rate of 94.5% or serrated lesion detection rate of 2.6%. Although lower than the other hospitals, the difference was not significant. Compared with surgical specialists, procedures performed by medical specialists involved older patients [65 years (inter-quartile range, IQR 58-73) vs 64 years (IQR 56-71); P = 0.04] and were associated with a higher adenoma detection rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.53; confidence interval: 1.21-1.94; P < 0.001]. Procedures involving trainee proceduralists were not associated with differences in the detection of cancer, adenoma, or serrated lesions, compared with specialists, or according to their medical or surgical background. On multivariate analysis, cancer detection was positively associated with patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001) and negatively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 0.54; P = 0.04). Conventional adenoma detection rates were independently associated with increasing patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001), positively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 1.41; P = 0.002) and negatively associated with male gender (OR 0.53; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in the quality of colonoscopy in Australia exist, even when national benchmarks are achieved. The role of possible contributing factors, like procedural specialty and patient gender need further evaluation.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopic Screening with Ketamine-based Sedation: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the relationship between one of the most commonly used anesthesia techniques, ketamine-based sedation, on the value of adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy screening.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study included 140 patients, who underwent a standard colonoscopy preparation before the procedure. Sedation regimens included ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg and propofol at 0.5 mg/kg. Additional doses of propofol were administered at 0.5 mg/kg to maintain the Ramsey Sedation scale. Baseline characteristics, ADR, bowel preparation quality according to the Chicago bowel preparation (CHBP) scale, cecal intubation, colonoscopy removal, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 55.76 years; 40 (28.6%) were males and 100 (71.4%) were females. The ADR was 43.57%, wherein 15.71% in males and 27.86% in females. There were 43.6% adenomas, 17.9% biopsies, and 22.9% polypectomies. The largest location of adenomas/polyps were in the rectum and sigmoid and ascending colon (p=0.11), a biopsy of the sigmoid colon and ileum (p<0.05), polypectomy of the rectum and sigmoid and ascending colon (p<0.05). The cecal intubation was 93.6% with a withdrawal time that is >6 min in most patients (80%) (p<0.05). The CHBP scale showed good bowel preparation (p<0.05) without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine-based sedation is in good overall correlation with ADR. Therefore, the sedation technique should be included for ADR assessment in the future.

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.

A Galvanizing Solution: Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation as a Trigger for Supraventricular Tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are among the most commonly used bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy. Although these solutions are well tolerated, rare adverse cardiac events have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to identify the characteristics that may predispose patients to develop supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) after ingestion of GoLYTELY (PEG 3350 and electrolytes oral solution) in anticipation for their colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of the electronic medical record of all patients who developed SVT after ingestion of GoLYTELY solution from April 2012 to March 2019 at the John D. Dingell VA Medical Center. Clinical data were obtained through review of medical records.

RESULTS

We identified 16 patients with new-onset SVT after ingestion of bowel preparation solution before undergoing the colonoscopy procedure. In all, 12 (75%) patients developed atrial fibrillation, 3 (18.8%) patients developed atrial tachycardia, and 1 patient (6.3%) developed atrial flutter. Most patients were male (93.8%), and the mean age was 69 ± 8.2 years. The commonly associated comorbidities were hypertension (87.5%), hyperlipidemia (56.3%), and diabetes (37.5%). Laboratory testing demonstrated a normal electrolyte panel and thyroid stimulating hormone level. A significant percentage of patients had dilated atria and left-ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiogram.

CONCLUSION

Our case series suggests that there may be certain individuals who are predisposed to development of atrial arrhythmias, more so than others, after ingestion of PEG based solution for colonoscopy. We hypothesize that the combination of atrial dilation, sympathovagal discharge, and transient electrolyte shifts at the cellular level led to the development of SVTs.

Comprehensive functional genomic analyses link APC somatic mutation and mRNA-miRNA networks to the clinical outcome of stage-III colorectal cancer patients

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health concern globally, but exhibits regional and/or environmental distinctions in terms of outcome especially for patients with stage III CRC.

Methods

From 2014 to 2016, matched pairs of tumor and adjacent normal tissue samples from 60 patients with stage I–IV CRC from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan were analyzed using next-generation sequencing. The DNA, mRNA, and miRNA sequences of paired tumor tissues were profiled. An observational study with survival analysis was done. Online datasets of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) were also integrated and compared.

Results

The gene that exhibited the highest mutation rate was adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) (75.0%), followed by TP53 (70.0%), KRAS (56.6%), and TTN (48.3%). APC was also the most frequently mutated gene in TCGA and ICGC datasets. Surprisingly, for non-metastatic cases (stages I-III), CRC patients with mutated APC had better outcome in terms of overall survival (p = 0.041) and recurrence free survival (p = 0.0048). Particularly for stage III CRC, the overall survival rate was 94.4% and 67.7%, respectively (p = 0.018), and the recurrence free survival rate was 94.4% and 16.7%, respectively (p = 0.00044). Further clinical and gene expression analyses revealed that the APC wt specimens to a greater extent exhibit poor differentiation state as well as EGFR upregulation, providing molecular basis for the poor prognosis of these patients. Finally, based on integrated transcriptome analysis, we constructed the mRNA-miRNA networks underlying disease recurrence of the stage III CRC and uncovered potential therapeutic targets for this clinical condition.

Conclusion

For stage III CRC, patients with mutated APC had better overall and recurrence free survival.

Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.

Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to assess the association between quality indicators used to evaluate individual colonoscopist performance and subsequent interval colorectal cancers (CRCs) in patients participating in bowel cancer screening programs.

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death. Bowel cancer screening has been shown to reduce CRC mortality and morbidity, and has therefore been introduced in many countries. Endoscopy societies have developed quality assurance guidelines and guidelines on quality indicators for screening colonoscopies. These quality indicators need to be validated against a relevant outcome to assess their value.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included studies on screening colonoscopies conducted on participants in a bowel cancer screening program, regardless of comorbidity. Studies on procedures performed on patients with known CRC, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer or familial adenomatous polyposis were excluded. We also included studies evaluating the quality indicators of withdrawal time (WT), cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The search did not reveal any studies evaluating the quality indicators polyp retrieval rate and incomplete adenoma resection/incomplete polyp resection. Only studies with interval CRC as an outcome were included (i.e. CRC diagnosed after a negative screening colonoscopy, but before the next recommended examination date).

METHODS

Published studies were searched in: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL. Unpublished studies were searched in: OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report. The sources were searched from 1980 to2018. Data were extracted using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. A meta-analysis was conducted based on three of the colonoscopist dependent quality indicators: WT, CIR and ADR.

RESULTS

Seven prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included out of 2373 papers identified after duplicates were removed. The included studies were on bowel cancer screening programs with colonoscopy as the primary screening tool, resulting in the inclusion of a total of 616,390 screening colonoscopies performed by 1431 colonoscopists and 2319 subsequent interval CRCs. Six studies were assessed as high-quality studies, and one study was of low quality. The meta-analysis on WT revealed a 61% lower risk of interval CRC among the patients if the mean WT per colonoscopist was >6 minutes as compared to a mean WT of <6 minutes (RR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.23 - 0.66]). The meta-analysis on CIR revealed a 31% lower risk of interval CRC among the patients if the CIR per colonoscopist was ≥90% as compared to a CIR of <85% (RR: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.56 - 0.83]). One of two meta-analyses on the individual colonoscopist ADR suggested that this should be 15-19%, as compared to an ADR <10% (RR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.62 - 0.96]), in order to significantly reduce the risk of interval CRC. The other meta-analysis on ADR revealed a significant association between an individual colonoscopist ADR of ≥25% and a lower risk of interval CRC as compared to an ADR of <25% (RR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.33 - 0.80]). The meta-analyses on WT and CIR showed no heterogeneity concerning the significant results (I = 0.0%). A high variability across studies due to heterogeneity concerning an ADR of ≥20% resulted in an I = 59.9%, and an I = 63.2% for an ADR of ≥25%.

CONCLUSIONS

To minimize the risk of interval CRC, it may be recommended that WT and CIRs are monitored in bowel cancer screening programs, with an optimal individual colonoscopist mean withdrawal time of >6 minutes and a cecal intubation rate of ≥90%. In bowel cancer screening programs using colonoscopy as their primary screening tool, it may be recommended that the individual colonoscopist ADR be 15-19% or better ≥25% to minimize the risk of interval CRC.

Effect of successive endoscopic procedures in polyp and adenoma detection rates: Too early is not always too good

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of hypothetical cumulative fatigue after performing too many endoscopic procedures on both polyp and adenoma detection rates (PDR, and ADR, respectively). The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of successive endoscopic procedures on PDR and ADR.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was undertaken among consecutive patients on whom colonoscopy and/or esophagogastroduodenoscopy were performed between January 2012 and August 2014. Data regarding polyp and adenoma detection, cecal intubation, and bowel cleansing quality as well as demographical data of subjects were extracted. Endoscopic procedures were classified according to the time slots of the procedures throughout the endoscopy session in three groups: from the 1st to 4th endoscopy study (round 1), from the 5th to the 8th study (round 2), above the 9th study (round 3). We compared PDR and ADR among rounds.

RESULTS

Overall, 3388 patients were enrolled. Median age was 50 years (range 18-95) and 52.39% were female. There was a significant difference in terms of PDR among rounds (36.83%, 41.24%, and 43.38%, respectively, p = 0.007) and a non-significant numerical difference when ADR was compared (23.2%, 25.71%, and 26.78%, p = 0.07). On multivariate analysis, ADR was significantly associated with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [1.01-1.03]), and male sex (OR 1.64 [1.38-1.94]).

CONCLUSION

Theoretical endoscopist's fatigue due to cumulative performance of endoscopies does not diminish colonoscopy quality. Both PDR and ADR seem to improve after endoscopist's cumulative rounds of performed endoscopies. This could be due to a "warm-up" effect.

State of the Science on Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy and How to Achieve Them

Colonoscopy is a safe and effective tool, but operator dependent. Room for improvement in the quality of colonoscopy is the impetus for the development and measurement of colonoscopy quality indicators and the focus of many efforts to improve colonoscopy quality indicator prevention and control in provider practices and health systems. We present the preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy. Every provider and practice must make a commitment to performing high-quality colonoscopy and implement and monitor quality metrics. There are a variety of tools available to assist in improving quality indicators that range from distal attachment devices to education and feedback. Although technology can help, it is not a substitute for proper technique. The commitment also requires provider feedback through audits and report cards. The impact of these efforts on patient outcomes is an important area of further research.

Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of having quality assessment, assurance, and improvement tools in health care is increasingly recognized. However, the additional associated administration burden progressively interferes with the structural implementation and adoption of such tools, especially when it concerns high-volume procedures such as colonoscopies. The development of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA), a registry with automated extraction of colonoscopy quality data, and its first results are described.

METHODS

In close cooperation with commercial endoscopy reporting systems and a national histopathology database, healthcare professionals performing colonoscopies initiated a quality registry that extracts data from its core hospital resource or histology database without manual interference of the healthcare providers. Data extracted consisted of patient age, gender, indication of the colonoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and cecal intubation; for the colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test in the colorectal cancer screening program, other data were polyp detection rate, which was available for all 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers, and adenoma detection rate, which was available for 26 hospitals or endoscopy centers.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019, 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers voluntarily participated in the DGEA, and 275,017 unique patients with 313,511 colonoscopies were registered. Overall missing values were limited to <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to deploy a quality registry collecting uniform data without additional administration burden for healthcare professionals.

Does the withdrawal time affect adenoma detection in non-screening colonoscopies?

AIMS

There are no studies looking at the relationship between colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) in non-screening patients. Our aim is to explore the relationship between CWT and ADR, particularly in the proximal colon where colonoscopy is shown to be less protective for the development of cancers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study during November 2015 to December 2016 of non-screening colonoscopies done at a large teaching hospital. Incomplete and therapeutic procedures were excluded. The 39 endoscopists included were 15 gastroenterologists, 10 colorectal surgeons and 14 trainee colonoscopists. CWT was calculated by reviewing caecal intubation and rectal retroflexion images.

RESULTS

783 colonoscopies were included, with mean patient age of 58.51 years (SD 15.5). The mean ADR was 21.45% in the study. The CWT could be calculated for 62.83% of the cases (n=492). 80% (393) of colonoscopies had CWT of ≥6 min. Mean CWT was 9.15 min (SD 4.4). The ADR positively correlated with longer CWT (r=0.31, p=0.0001). The ADR was significantly higher when CWT was ≥8 min compared with CWT <6 min or CWT of 6-8 min (p=0.0001). More polyps were detected in the proximal colon when CWT ≥8 min (p=0.078). Mean CWT of gastroenterologists was 9.8 min (SD 4.5), similar to the trainee group (10.3 min, SD 3.8), while mean CWT for colorectal surgeons was 5.7 min (SD 3.2). The ADR for gastroenterologists was 25.9% versus 17.5% for colorectal surgeons and 17.8% for trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a moderately strong positive correlation between longer CWT and ADR in non-screening colonoscopies. CWT can differ between different endoscopists. Meticulous colonoscopy withdrawal may improve polyp detection in the proximal colon.

EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy could improve adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) could improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published up to March 2019. All pure randomized controlled trials comparing ADR between EAC and SC groups were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials consisting of 9038 patients (EAC: 4574; SC: 4464) were included. The EAC group showed significant superiority over the SC group in ADR (odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62). However, there were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC could significantly improve ADR without increasing adverse events, especially for operators with low ADRs. In addition, no significant difference was observed in cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate between EAC and SC.

The performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI) in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program

Objective: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is known to be inversely associated with interval colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Cecal intubation may be achieved by the use of force and sedation jeopardizing patient safety. The Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI) is defined as the proportion of colonoscopies achieving cecal intubation with use of ≤2 mg midazolam and no-mild patient-experienced discomfort. We aimed (i) to measure the variation of PICI between colonoscopists and colonoscopy units; (ii) to assess the correlation between the individual components of PICI; and (iii) to evaluate the association between PICI and commonly used performance indicators. Materials and methods: For the period 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017 of the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based CRC screening program, we included colonoscopies performed at four units in the Central Denmark Region within 60 days after a positive FIT-test. The PICI variation was evaluated using rates and ranges. Correlations between individual PICI components were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Polyp detection rate (PDR), Adenoma detection rate (ADR), Polyp retrieval rate (PRR) and Withdrawal time (WT) were assessed within PICI quartiles. Results: The overall PICI was 78.7% with substantial variation between colonoscopists (40.0-91.9%) and units (72.6-82.0%). CIR was significantly correlated with patient-experienced comfort (r = 0.49, n = 73, p < .0001) and we observed that colonoscopists with a PICI between 79.9% and 84.3%) had the highest ADR. Conclusion: We found a substantial variation in PICI between colonoscopists and between colonoscopy units, which may reflect potential for quality improvements.

Optimal Timing of Simethicone Addition for Bowel Preparation Using Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid

BACKGROUND

Colonic bubbles obscure the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc). Simethicone is used to enhance visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to determine the optimal timing of simethicone addition to improve bowel preparation using PEG-Asc.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized study enrolled patients undergoing elective colonoscopy from April 2017 to January 2018. They were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PEG-Asc only (control) or simethicone addition in the morning on the day of colonoscopy (PEG-S1) or in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy (PEG-S2). The primary outcome was the quality of colon cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) ADR.

RESULTS

In total, 240 patients were randomly allocated to the three groups; six patients were withdrawn. Of the 234 patients evaluated, 78, 79, and 77 were allocated to the control, PEG-S1, and PEG-S2 groups, respectively. The bubble scores of all colonic segments were lowest in the PEG-S2 group. There was no significant difference in ADR or PDR among the three groups. However, the diminutive ADR was significantly higher in the PEG-S2 group compared to the other two groups (control 5.1% vs. PEG-S1 8.9% vs. PEG-S2 20.8%; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Addition of simethicone to PEG-Asc at the optimal time prevents the formation of air bubbles and so improves the quality of bowel preparation, especially enhancing diminutive ADR.

Factors predicting the colorectal adenoma detection rate in colonoscopic screening of a Chinese population: A prospective study

Colorectal cancer has high incidence and mortality. Early diagnosis could increase patient survival, but early diagnosis has been poor in China for the past decades. The purpose of this study is to assess the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) by colonoscopy in a Chinese population, and to determine the risk factors for adenoma.This prospective study at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital evaluated patients who underwent colonoscopy in September 2017 to February 2018. Basic information, exact insertion and withdrawal times, PDR, and ADR were assessed. Risk factors for colorectal adenoma in the adenoma-positive and adenoma-negative groups (based on pathology) were assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis.A total of 1058 procedures with 767 polyps were analyzed. The overall PDR and ADR were 36.96% (391/1058) and 24.67% (261/1058), respectively. Occurrence of adenoma was associated with age, gender, body mass index (BMI), family history of colon cancer, personal history of adenoma, diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use. There was a significant association between withdrawal time and ADR (P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, age (OR = 1.041, 95%CI 1.028-1.055; P < .001), insertion time (OR = 0.999, 95%CI 0.998-1.000; P = .009), withdrawal time (OR = 1.009, 95%CI 1.007-1.011; P < .001), personal history of adenoma (OR = 2.572, 95%CI 1.115-5.932; P = .027), and diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.221, 95%CI 1.084-4.549; P = .029) were risk factors for colorectal adenoma detection.In a Chinese population, ADR increases with age, withdrawal time, a personal history of adenoma, and diabetes. Age, insertion and withdrawal times, and a personal history of adenoma may independently predict colorectal adenoma detection.

Data quality and colonoscopy performance indicators in the prevalent round of a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program

Objective: From the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, we aimed (i) to evaluate the quality of recorded data and (ii) to characterize the colonoscopies by measuring variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists and assessing the ratio between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Materials and methods: This study included screening colonoscopies performed in Central Denmark Region within 60 days of a positive FIT-result from 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017. The participants were the colonoscopists, performing these procedures. The quality indicators cecal intubation rate (CIR), PDR, polyp retrieval rate (PRR), ADR and withdrawal time (WT) were evaluated. ADR/PDR ratios were calculated. Results: The concordance between the recorded data and the colonoscopy reports showed Kappa values in the range of 0.47-0.97. The overall CIR was 90.6% (range 73.7%-100%), PDR: 51.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%), PRR: 94.6% (range 69.6%-100%), ADR (conventional adenomas): 50.6% (range 18.4%-70.2%), ADRx (conventional adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas and sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia): 50.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%) and the mean WT was 11.3 min (range 4.5-24.9 min). The ADR/PDR ratio was 92.8% (95% CI: 92.0%-93.6%) and the ADRx/PDR ratio was 93.2% (95% CI: 92.4%-93.9%). Conclusion: Data quality was generally high. We found considerable variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists reflecting the potential for improvement. Further, our findings revealed that the PDR might be a good proxy for ADR in the context of the prevalent round of FIT-based CRC screening programs.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Establishing a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Tens of millions of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed every year in China, but the quality varies significantly and related factors are complex. Individual endoscopist- and endoscopy division-related factors may be useful to establish a model to measure and predict the quality of endoscopy.

AIM

To establish a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in mainland China.

METHODS

Selected data on endoscopy experience, equipment, facility, qualification of endoscopists, and other relevant variables were collected from the National Database of Digestive Endoscopy of China. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential predictive variables for occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. Linear and nonlinear regressions were used to establish models to predict incidence of endoscopic complications.

RESULTS

In 2012, gastroscopy/colonoscopy-related complications in mainland China included bleeding in 4,359 cases (0.02%) and perforation in 914 (0.003%). Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-related complications included severe acute pancreatitis in 593 cases (0.3%), bleeding in 2,151 (1.10%), perforation in 257 (0.13%) and biliary infection in 4,125 (2.11%). Moreover, 1,313 (5.0%) endoscopists encountered with medical malpractice, and 5,243 (20.0%) encountered with the disturbance from patients. The length of endoscopy experience, weekly working hours, weekly night shifts, annual vacation days and job satisfaction were predictors for the occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. However, the length of endoscopy experience and the ratio of endoscopists to nurses were not adequate to establish an effective predictive model for endoscopy complications.

CONCLUSION

The workload and job satisfaction of endoscopists are valuable predictors for medical malpractice or patient disturbance. More comprehensive data are needed to establish quality-predictive models for endoscopic complications.

Efficacy of three intestinal preparation methods for colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of three intestinal preparation methods for colonoscopy to identify the safest, simplest and fastest intestinal preparation method.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients undergoing colonoscopy at Department of Anorectal Surgery, Yuyao People's Hospita between August 2017 and January 2018 were randomly divided into groups A, B and C, which were orally administrated with sodium phosphate, compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder, and compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder + magnesium sulphate, respectively. Adverse reactions of the three intestinal cleansers were evaluated using questionnaires. Intestinal cleansing effect and intestinal bubble volume were evaluated by endoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

Intestinal cleansing effect in groups A and C was superior to that of group B (P < 0.05). Adverse reactions in the group A were obviously less than those in group C (P < 0.05), although there was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B or between group B and group C (P > 0.05). Intestinal bubble volume presented no statistically significant difference among groups A, B and C (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intestinal cleansing effect of sodium phosphate and compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder + magnesium sulphate is superior to compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder. Moreover, sodium phosphate is characterized by low dose and mild intestinal adverse reactions; therefore, it should be the first choice in clinical practice.

Quality indicators for screening colonoscopies and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval bowel cancer: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to assess the association between quality indicators related to the individual colonoscopist's performance and subsequent interval cancers in patients participating in bowel cancer screening programs, following the JBI approach.This systematic review of association will search all relevant literature on the subject to answer the following review questions.

Double-Balloon Endoscopy after Incomplete Colonoscopy and Its Comparison with Computed Tomography Colonography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because of the national screening program for colorectal carcinoma in The Netherlands, the number of colonoscopies has increased. In case of incomplete colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and double-balloon colonoscopy (DBc) are alternative options. This study evaluated cecal intubation rate and pathology detection rate in the previously unexplored part of the colon, complication rate of DBc, and CTC results after incomplete colonoscopy.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in a tertiary referral hospital regarding DBc and CTC reports from cases with incomplete colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Sixty-three DBcs were performed after incomplete colonoscopy. Cecal intubation rate was 95%. Detection rate was 58% (5% carcinoma and 3% high-grade dysplastic adenoma). CTC preceded 54% of DBcs and 62% of CTC findings were confirmed. In 16%, a biopsy was taken, and in 60%, an intervention (mostly polypectomy) was performed. One major complication (1.5%) occurred, i.e., arterial bleeding due to polypectomy necessitating right hemicolectomy. CTC (n=213) showed a possible lesion in 35%, and could be confirmed by follow-up endoscopy or surgery in 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

DBc is effective and safe for completion of colon inspection in incomplete colonoscopy. In patients with a high likelihood of pathology, DBc is preferred over CTC.

Full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV) in a high-risk population

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the diagnostic performance of Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) compared to a conventional standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and mean adenoma detection. Secondary outcome was feasibility of FUSE opposed to SFV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients participating in the Danish colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme were prospectively included in the study (n = 205). Demographic and health-related characteristics were obtained. Following procedural parameters were recorded: completion rate, caecal intubation time, fentanyl and midazolam sedation, CRC detection, ADR, diverticulosis, bowel preparation, patient discomfort and endoscopist difficulty rating. Participants underwent FUSE colonoscopy on days when the FUSE system was available, while the remaining participants had SFV. All colonoscopies were performed by two trained endoscopists.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were included in the FUSE group and 106 in the SFV group. Groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Completion rate was 83.5% and 93.4% in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). Caecal intubation time was 11.4 ± 6.7 min versus 9.1 ± 6.2 min in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). ADR was 67.0% and 59.6% (p = .097), while the mean adenoma detection was 1.79 and 1.38 (p = .022) in the FUSE and SFV groups. Endoscopists reported increased difficulty rating with FUSE compared to SFV (p > .001).

CONCLUSION

FUSE colonoscopy provides a higher mean adenoma detection and there is tendency toward higher ADR compared to SFV in a high-risk population. Nonetheless, FUSE colonoscopy has a lower completion rate, longer caecal intubation time and a higher difficulty rating from an endoscopist point of view.

Examination time as a quality indicator of screening upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for asymptomatic examinees

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The significance of examination time of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for asymptomatic examinees is yet to be established. We aimed to clarify whether endoscopists who allot more examination time can detect higher numbers of neoplastic lesions among asymptomatic examinees.

METHODS

We reviewed a database of consecutive examinees who underwent EGD in our hospital from April 2010 to September 2015. Staff endoscopists were classified into fast, moderate, and slow groups based on the mean examination time of EGD without a biopsy. Neoplastic lesion detection rate among these groups was compared using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 55 786 consecutive examinees who underwent EGD, 15 763 asymptomatic examinees who were screened by staff doctors were analyzed. Mean examination time of 13 661 EGD without biopsy was 6.2 min (range, 2-18 min). When cut-off times of 5 and 7 min were used, four endoscopists were classified into the fast (mean duration, 4.4 ± 1.0 min), 12 into the moderate (6.1 ± 1.4 min), and four into the slow (7.8 ± 1.9 min) groups. Neoplastic lesion detection rates in the fast, moderate, and slow groups were 0.57% (13/2288), 0.97% (99/10 180), and 0.94% (31/3295), respectively. Compared with that in the fast group, odds ratios for the neoplastic lesion detection rate in the moderate and slow groups were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.40) and 1.89 (95% CI, 0.98-3.64), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists who do not allot adequate examination time may overlook neoplastic lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic Improvement of the Adenoma Detection Rate during Colonoscopy - Where Do We Stand in 2015?

BACKGROUND

The presence of colorectal adenomas is considered a major risk factor for colorectal cancer development. The implementation of screening colonoscopy programs in the Western world has led to a substantial reduction of colorectal cancer death. Many efforts have been made to reduce the adenoma miss rates by the application of new endoscopic devices and techniques for better adenoma visualization.

SUMMARY

This special review gives the readership an overview of current endoscopic innovations that can aid in the increase of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. These innovations include the use of devices like EndoCuff® and EndoRings® as well as new technical equipment like third-eye endoscope® and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE®).

KEY MESSAGE

Technical improvements and newly developed accessories are able to improve the ADR. However, additional costs and a willingness to invest into potentially expensive equipment might be necessary. Investigator-dependent skills remain the backbone in the ADR detection.

Preparation regimen is more important than patient-related factors: a randomized trial comparing a standard bowel preparation before colonoscopy with an individualized approach

BACKGROUND

Optimal bowel preparation is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of colonoscopy. Several patient-related factors are known to influence the quality of bowel cleansing but randomized trials in this area are lacking. We aimed to compare an individualized bowel prep strategy based on patient characteristics to a standard preparation regimen.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted an endoscopist-blinded multicenter randomized control-trial. The Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS) was used to assess quality of bowel preparation and a 10 point visual analogue scale to assess patient comfort during bowel prep. Patients were randomised to either the standard regimens of split-dose 4L polyethylene-glycol (group A), split-dose sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (group B) or to either of the two depending on their responses to a 3-item questionnaire (individualized preparation, group C).

RESULTS

185 patients were randomized during the study period and 143 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients in the individualized group had a median BBPS of 7 compared to a median of 6 in the standard group (p = 0.7). Also, there was no significant difference in patients' comfort scores, irrespective of study group or laxative regimen. However, on multivariable analysis, a split-dose 4L polyethylene-glycol was an independent predictor for achieving a BBPS>6 (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.4-9.8), regardless of patient-related factors.

CONCLUSION

The choice of laxative seems to be more important than patient-related factors in predicting bowel cleansing. Comfort during bowel prep is not influenced by the type of strategy used.

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.

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.

Optimizing post-polypectomy surveillance: A practical guide for the endoscopist

Several gastrointestinal societies strongly recommend colonoscopy surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal neoplasms. Common denominators to these recommendations include: high-quality baseline colonoscopy before inclusion in a surveillance program; risk stratification based on clinicopathological profiles to guide surveillance intervals; and endoscopist responsibility for providing surveillance advice. Considerable variability also exists between guidelines (i.e. regarding risk classification and surveillance intervals). In this review, we examine key factors for quality of post-polypectomy surveillance practice, in particular bowel preparation, endoscopic findings at baseline examination and adherence to surveillance recommendations. Frequently asked questions by the practising endoscopist are addressed.

Usefulness of oil lubrication during colonoscopy: A comparative study with the conventional technique

BACKGROUND

The different forms of lubrication are among the most simple, accessible, and economic techniques that have been implemented for improving the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy.

AIM

To determine whether the use of oil improved the number of complete colonoscopies, facilitated the procedure, reduced pain, or improved the study's diagnostic performance, compared with the conventional lubrication technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-five patients referred for colonoscopy were alternately allocated to receive treatment with the standard lubrication method with chlorhexidine gel (group 1) or lubrication with corn oil administered through the working channel (group II). The number of complete colonoscopies, the length of time needed to reach the cecum, the degree of difficulty estimated by the endoscopist and the assistant, the level of pain at the end of the study estimated by the patient, and the endoscopic findings were all determined.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients made up group I and 87 made up group II. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to general characteristics, the number of complete colonoscopies (93 vs. 97%, respectively), the time needed to reach the cecum (8:00 vs. 8:41min, respectively), the level of pain at the end of the study, or the detection of polyps. The degree of difficulty was slightly lower in group II, but with no statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Lubrication with oil during colonoscopy did not improve the number of complete colonoscopies, did not facilitate the study, nor did it reduce pain or increase the diagnostic performance of the study, when compared with the conventional technique.

Measuring Quality in Pediatric Endoscopy

Measuring quality in endoscopy includes the assessment of appropriateness of a procedure and the skill with which it is performed. High-quality pediatric endoscopy is safe and efficient, used effectively to make proper diagnoses, is useful for excluding other diagnoses, minimizes adverse events, and is accompanied by appropriate documentation from beginning through end of the procedure. There are no standard quality metrics for pediatric endoscopy, but proposed candidates are both process and outcomes oriented. Both are likely to be used in the near future to increase transparency about patient outcomes, as well as to influence payments for the procedure.

Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and second most common in women. It is the fourth most common cause of cancer mortality. In the United States, CRC is the third most common cause of cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality. Incidence and mortality rates have steadily fallen, primarily due to widespread screening.

METHODS

We conducted keyword searches on PubMed in four categories of CRC screening: stool, endoscopic, radiologic, and serum, as well as news searches in Medscape and Google News.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening and the most common method in the United States. Technological improvements continue to be made, including the promising "third-eye retroscope." Fecal occult blood remains widely used, particularly outside the United States. The first at-home screen, a fecal DNA screen, has also recently been approved. Radiological methods are effective but seldom used due to cost and other factors. Serum tests are largely experimental, although at least one is moving closer to market.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy is likely to remain the most popular screening modality for the immediate future, although its shortcomings will continue to spur innovation in a variety of modalities.

Meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of polyethylene glycol vs mannitol for colonoscopy preparation

AIM: To assess systematically the effectiveness and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG) vs mannitol for colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, China Biology Medicine disc and China Journal Full-text Database were searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PEG and mannitol for colonoscopy preparation. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the studies were determined. The quality of the included studies was evaluated, and Meta-analysis was performed using Stata12 software.

RESULTS: A total of 15 studies involving 3131 cases were included. Meta-analysis showed that the PEG group had a higher rate of adequate cleaning quality (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 1.05-1.12, P = 0.000) of all colon segments than the mannitol group, and the rate of excellent cleansing quality (RR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.09-1.39, P = 0.001) in the PEG group was also superior to that in the mannitol group. The PEG group was associated with significantly lower incidences of cramps and bloating (RR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.22-0.39, P = 0.000), nausea and emesis (RR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.20-0.50, P = 0.000), as well as hunger, dizziness and fatigue (RR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.12-0.50, P = 0.000) than the mannitol group.

CONCLUSION: Polyethylene glycol is superior to mannitol in terms of effectiveness and safety for colonoscopy preparation, however, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our finding.

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.