Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.

RESULTS

Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively).

DISCUSSION

A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

The Environmental Impact of Gastrointestinal Procedures: A Prospective Study of Waste Generation, Energy Consumption, and Auditing in an Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures are critical for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of GI disorders. However, like the procedures in other medical disciplines, they are a source of environmental waste generation and energy consumption.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on total waste generation, energy consumption, and the role of intraprocedural inventory audit of a single tertiary care academic endoscopy unit over a 2-month period (May-June 2022). Detailed data on items used were collected, including procedure type (esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy), accessories, intravenous tubing, biopsy jars, linen, and personal protective equipment use. Data on endoscope reprocessing-related waste generation and energy use in the endoscopy unit (equipment, lights, and computers) were also collected. We used an endoscopy staff-guided auditing and review of the items used during procedures to determine potentially recyclable items going to landfill waste. The waste generated was stratified into biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable items.

RESULTS

A total of 450 consecutive procedures were analyzed for total waste management (generation and reprocessing) and energy consumption. The total waste generated during the study period was 1398.6 kg (61.6% directly going to landfill, 33.3% biohazard waste, and 5.1% sharps), averaging 3.03 kg/procedure. The average waste directly going to landfill was 219 kg per 100 procedures. The estimated total annual waste generation approximated the size of 2 football fields (1-foot-high layered waste). Endoscope reprocessing generated 194 gallons of liquid waste per day, averaging 13.85 gallons per procedure. Total energy consumption in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW·h energy per day; for every 100 procedures, amounting to 1200 miles of distance traveled by an average fuel efficiency car. The estimated carbon footprint for every 100 GI procedures was 1501 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (= 1680 lbs of coal burned), which would require 1.8 acres of forests to sequester. The recyclable waste audit and review demonstrated that 20% of total waste consisted of potentially recyclable items (8.6 kg/d) that could be avoided by appropriate waste segregation of these items.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, every 100 GI endoscopy procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy) are associated with 303 kg of solid waste and 1385 gallons of liquid waste generation, and 1980 kW·h energy consumption. Potentially recyclable materials account for 20% of the total waste. These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and decrease landfill waste and water waste toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units.

Recurrence rates of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) in subjects with baseline ACN followed up at different surveillance intervals

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines recommend that a baseline finding of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) should be followed-up within 1-3 years.

AIM

We compared the recurrence rate of ACN at 1 year vs. 3 years among individuals with ACN detected and polypectomised at baseline colonoscopy.

METHODS

We extracted data from eligible patients in a Chinese population database from 2008 to 2018. The outcome variables included recurrence of advanced adenoma and advanced neoplasia, respectively, at follow-up colonoscopy. Binary logistic regression modeling was constructed to examine the association between length of surveillance and the outcome variables, controlling for risk factors of colorectal cancer, including age, gender, smoking, alcohol drinking, body mass index and chronic diseases.

RESULTS

We included 147,270 subjects who have received a baseline colonoscopy from our dataset. They were aged 69.3 years and 59.7% of them were male subjects. The crude 1-year and 3-year recurrence rate of ACN was 7.57% and 7.74%. From a binary logistic regression model, individuals with surveillance colonoscopy performed at 3 years did not have significantly higher recurrence rate of ACN than those followed-up at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significantly difference in recurrence of ACN between individuals who received workup at 1vs. 3 years. These findings support a 3-year surveillance period after baseline ACN was polypectomised.

Risk of recurrent advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals with baseline non-advanced neoplasia followed up at 5 vs 7-10 years

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the commonest cancers, especially among the Asian populations. We compared the recurrence rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) at 5 year vs 7-10 years among individuals with non-advanced adenoma (NAA) detected and polypectomized at baseline colonoscopy in a large Chinese population.

METHODS

We extracted data of a large Chinese population with NAA polypectomized who received surveillance colonoscopy after 5 or 7-10 years from a large database (2008-2018). The outcome variable included recurrence of ACN at surveillance colonoscopy. We examined the association between length of surveillance and the outcome variable, whilst controlling for risk factors of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

We include 109 768 subjects who have received a baseline colonoscopy from our dataset. They were aged 67.35 (SD 9.84) years, and 60.9% of them were male subjects. The crude 5-year and 10-year recurrence rate of ACN was 1.50% and 2.42%, respectively (crude odds ratio = 1.629, 95% CI 1.362 to 1.949, P < 0.001). From the binary logistic regression model, individuals with surveillance colonoscopy performed at 10 years had a statistically higher recurrence rate of ACN than those followed-up at 5 year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.544, 95% CI 1.266 to 1.877, P < 0.001), but the effect size of aOR is small.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a small difference in recurrence of ACN between individuals who received colonoscopy workup at 5 years vs 7-10 years. These findings support a 7-10 years surveillance period after baseline NAA was polypectomized.

Impact of Epic Smartlist and Lumens Software in Improving OP-29 Compliance at a Tertiary Health Care Network

Background OP-29 is a Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) measure to ensure that endoscopists recommend appropriate follow-up intervals after normal colonoscopy in average risk patients. Failure to report OP-29 compliance can adversely affect hospital quality star rating as well as reimbursement for health care. The aim of our quality improvement project was to improve OP-29 compliance to the top decile over three years. Methodology Our sample included patients between 50-75 years of age who received average risk screening colonoscopies with normal findings. We provided intensive education to endoscopists about the importance of OP-29 compliance, developed an Epic Smartlist that directs our endoscopists to list an appropriate reason for colonoscopy intervals other than 10 years, and monitored OP-29 compliance monthly. We became the first health network in the United States to implement the Lumens endoscopy report writing software (Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, USA) and added the OP-29-related Epic Smartlist to the Lumens colonoscopy note template. All statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA) to compute the means and frequencies of outcomes. Results Our sample included 2,171 patients with a mean age of 60.5 years of whom the majority were female (57.2%) and Caucasians (90%). Our OP-29 score increased from 87.47% to 100% over the course of three years, and this steady improvement was seen broadly across our network. We compared our network score averages to our state and national averages and consistently demonstrated higher compliance rates while reaching the top decile by 2020. Conclusion We believe our improved OP-29 compliance has reduced colonoscopy overutilization, improved health care quality, and reduced health care costs for our patients and health network. To our knowledge, this is the first reported project towards improving OP-29 compliance utilizing the Epic Lumens software. Epic Lumens (Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, USA) added this Smartlist as quick buttons in the standard colonoscopy procedure note templates they built for other organizations to improve health care quality and cost nationally.

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey

INTRODUCTION

There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults.

METHODS

In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles.

RESULTS

Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

DISCUSSION

Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

To scope or not - the challenges of managing patients with positive fecal occult blood test after recent colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health problem. There is minimal consensus of the appropriate approach to manage patients with positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), following a recent colonoscopy.

AIM

To determine the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in patients with a positive iFOBT after a recent colonoscopy, and clinical and endoscopic predictors for advanced neoplasia.

METHODS

The study recruited iFOBT positive patients who underwent colonoscopy between July 2015 to March 2020. Data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, previous and current colonoscopy findings. Primary outcome was the prevalence of CRC and advanced neoplasia in a patient with positive iFOBT and previous colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included identifying any clinical and endoscopic predictors for advanced neoplasia.

RESULTS

The study included 1051 patients (male 53.6%; median age 63). Forty-two (4.0%) patients were diagnosed with CRC, 513 (48.8%) with adenoma/sessile serrated lesion (A-SSL) and 257 (24.5%) with advanced A-SSL (AA-SSL). A previous colonoscopy had been performed in 319 (30.3%). In this cohort, four (1.3%) were diagnosed with CRC, 146 (45.8%) with A-SSL and 56 (17.6%) with AA-SSL. Among those who had a colonoscopy within 4 years, none had CRC and 7 had AA-SSL. Of the 732 patients with no prior colonoscopy, there were 38 CRCs (5.2%). Independent predictors for advanced neoplasia were male [odds ratio (OR) = 1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-2.40; P < 0.001), age (OR = 1.04; 95%CI: 1.02-1.06; P < 0.001) and no previous colonoscopy (OR = 2.07; 95%CI: 1.49-2.87; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A previous colonoscopy, irrespective of its result, was associated with low prevalence of advanced neoplasia, and if performed within four years of a positive iFOBT result, was protective against CRC.

Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study

Background

Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application.

Methods

Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists.

Result

53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline.

Conclusions

Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Digital System for Histologic Classification of Colorectal Polyps

Importance

Colorectal polyps are common, and their histopathologic classification is used in the planning of follow-up surveillance. Substantial variation has been observed in pathologists' classification of colorectal polyps, and improved assessment by pathologists may be associated with reduced subsequent underuse and overuse of colonoscopy.

Objective

To compare standard microscopic assessment with an artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented digital system that annotates regions of interest within digitized polyp tissue and predicts polyp type using a deep learning model to assist pathologists in colorectal polyp classification.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center and a community hospital in New Hampshire, 100 slides with colorectal polyp samples were read by 15 pathologists using a microscope and an AI-augmented digital system, with a washout period of at least 12 weeks between use of each modality. The study was conducted from February 10 to July 10, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Accuracy and time of evaluation were used to compare pathologists' performance when a microscope was used with their performance when the AI-augmented digital system was used. Outcomes were compared using paired t tests and mixed-effects models.

Results

In assessments of 100 slides with colorectal polyp specimens, use of the AI-augmented digital system significantly improved pathologists' classification accuracy compared with microscopic assessment from 73.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-76.2%) to 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.8%) (P < .001). The overall difference in the evaluation time per slide between the digital system (mean, 21.7 seconds; 95% CI, 20.8-22.7 seconds) and microscopic examination (mean, 13.0 seconds; 95% CI, 12.4-13.5 seconds) was -8.8 seconds (95% CI, -9.8 to -7.7 seconds), but this difference decreased as pathologists became more familiar and experienced with the digital system; the difference between the time of evaluation on the last set of 20 slides for all pathologists when using the microscope and the digital system was 4.8 seconds (95% CI, 3.0-6.5 seconds).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this diagnostic study, an AI-augmented digital system significantly improved the accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps compared with microscopic assessment. If applied broadly to clinical practice, this tool may be associated with decreases in subsequent overuse and underuse of colonoscopy and thus with improved patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Clinical care pathway program versus open-access system: a study on appropriateness, quality, and efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy in the colorectal cancer

Open-access colonoscopy (OAC), whereby the colonoscopy is performed without a prior office visit with a gastroenterologist, is affected by inappropriateness which leads to overprescription and reduced availability of the procedure in case of alarming symptoms. The clinical care pathway (CCP) is a healthcare management tool promoted by national health systems to organize work-up of various morbidities. Recently, we started a CCP dedicated to colorectal cancer (CRC), including a colonoscopy session for CRC diagnosis and prevention. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness, the quality, and the efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy with the open-access system and a CCP program in the CRC. Quality indicators for colonoscopy in subjects in the CCP were compared to referrals by general practitioners (OAC) or by non-gastroenterologist physicians (non-gastroenterologist physician colonoscopy, NGPC). Attendance rate to colonoscopy was greater in the CCP group and NGPC group than in the OAC group (99%, 99%, and 86%, respectively). Waiting time in the CCP group was shorter than in the OAC group (3.88 ± 2.27 vs. 32 ± 22.31 weeks, respectively). Appropriateness of colonoscopy prescription was better in the CCP group than in the OAC group (92 vs. 50%, respectively). OAC is affected by the lack of timeliness and low appropriateness of prescription. A CCP reduces the number of inappropriate colonoscopies, especially for post-polypectomy surveillance, and improves the delivery of colonoscopy in patients requiring a fast-track examination. The high rate of inappropriate OAC suggests that this modality of healthcare should be widely reviewed.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Cancer Related Mortality After Detection of Low-risk or High-risk Adenomas, Compared With No Adenoma, at Index Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients with no adenomas, low-risk adenomas (LRAs), or high-risk adenomas (HRAs), detected at index colonoscopy, is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare incidence rates of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality after a baseline colonoscopy for each group.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies that reported the incidence of CRC and adenoma characteristics after colonoscopy. The primary outcome was odds of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years of follow-up after baseline colonoscopy for all the groups.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 12 studies with 510,019 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 2.6 years; 55% male; mean duration of follow up, 8.5 ± 3.3 years). The incidence of CRC per 10,000 person-years was marginally higher for patients with LRAs compared to those with no adenomas (4.5 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; I²=0), but significantly higher for patients with HRAs compared to those with no adenoma ( 13.8 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69; I²=0 ) and patients with HRAs compared to LRAs (13.81 vs 4.5; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.72-3.20; I²=55%). However, the CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years did not differ significantly for patients with LRAs compared to no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74; I²=0) but was significantly higher in persons with HRAs compared with LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75; I²=38%) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87; I²=0).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the risk of metachronous CRC and mortality is significantly higher for patients with HRAs, but this risk is very low in patients with LRAs, comparable to patients with no adenomas. Follow-up of patients with LRAs detected at index colonoscopy should be the same as for persons with no adenomas.

Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines after the Removal of Colorectal Polyps: A Multinational, Multicenter, Prospective Survey

Background/Aims

As the number of colonoscopies and polypectomies performed continues to increase in many Asian countries, there is a great demand for surveillance colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia.

Methods

A survey study was performed in seven Asian countries. An email invitation with a link to the survey was sent to participants who were asked to complete the questionnaire consisting of eight clinical scenarios.

Results

Of the 137 doctors invited, 123 (89.8%) provided valid responses. Approximately 50% of the participants adhered to the guidelines regardless of the risk of adenoma, except in the case of tubulovillous adenoma ≥10 mm combined with high-grade dysplasia, in which 35% of the participants adhered to the guidelines. The participants were stratified according to the number of colonoscopies performed ≥20 colonoscopies per month (high volume group) and <20 colonoscopies per month (low volume group). Higher adherence to the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines was evident in the high volume group (60%) than in the low volume group (25%). The reasons for nonadherence included concern of missed polyps (59%), the low cost of colonoscopy (26%), concern of incomplete resection (25%), and concern of medical liability (15%).

Conclusions

A discrepancy between clinical practice and surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia was found. Physicians in the low volume group frequently did not adhere to the guidelines, suggesting a need for continuing education and appropriate control. Concerns regarding the quality of colonoscopy and complete polypectomy were the main reasons for nonadherence.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed.

RESULTS

We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%).

CONCLUSION

Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

A retrospective approach to evaluating potential adverse outcomes associated with delay of procedures for cardiovascular and cancer-related diagnoses in the context of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems postponed non-essential medical procedures to accommodate surge of critically-ill patients. The long-term consequences of delaying procedures in response to COVID-19 remains unknown. We developed a high-throughput approach to understand the impact of delaying procedures on patient health outcomes using electronic health record (EHR) data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used EHR data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's (VUMC) Research and Synthetic Derivatives. Elective procedures and non-urgent visits were suspended at VUMC between March 18, 2020 and April 24, 2020. Surgical procedure data from this period were compared to a similar timeframe in 2019. Potential adverse impact of delay in cardiovascular and cancer-related procedures was evaluated using EHR data collected from January 1, 1993 to March 17, 2020. For surgical procedure delay, outcomes included length of hospitalization (days), mortality during hospitalization, and readmission within six months. For screening procedure delay, outcomes included 5-year survival and cancer stage at diagnosis.

RESULTS

We identified 416 surgical procedures that were negatively impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same timeframe in 2019. Using retrospective data, we found 27 significant associations between procedure delay and adverse patient outcomes. Clinician review indicated that 88.9% of the significant associations were plausible and potentially clinically significant. Analytic pipelines for this study are available online.

CONCLUSION

Our approach enables health systems to identify medical procedures affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate the effect of delay, enabling them to communicate effectively with patients and prioritize rescheduling to minimize adverse patient outcomes.

Colonoscopy Quality and Adherence to Postpolypectomy Surveillance Guidelines in an Underinsured Clinic System

Background

Delivery of high-quality colonoscopy and adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines is essential to a high-quality screening program, especially in safety net systems with limited resources. We sought to assess colonoscopy quality and ensure appropriate surveillance in a network of safety net practices.

Methods

We identified age-eligible patients ages 50-75 within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic system with evidence of colonoscopy in preceding 10 years. We performed chart reviews to assess key aspects of colonoscopy quality: bowel preparation quality, evidence of cecal intubation, cecal withdrawal time, and the adenoma detection rate. We then utilized established guidelines to assess and revise surveillance colonoscopy intervals, determine whether appropriate surveillance had taken place, and schedule overdue patients as appropriate.

Results

Of 26,394 age-eligible patients, a total of 3,970 patients had evidence of prior colonoscopy and 1,709 charts were selected and reviewed. Mean age was 57, 54% identified as women and 51% identified as Hispanic. Of 1709 colonoscopies reviewed, 77% had data on bowel preparation, and of those, 85% had adequate preparation quality. Cecal intubation was documented in 89% of procedures. Adequate cecal withdrawal time was documented in 59% of those with documented cecal intubation. Overall adenoma detection rate was 42%. Initial surveillance interval was clearly stated in 72% (n = 1238) of procedures. Of these, initial recommended intervals were too short in 24.5% (n = 304) and too long in 3.6% (n = 45). A total of 132 patients (10.7%) were overdue for appropriate surveillance and were referred for follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of screening colonoscopy was high, but reporting was incomplete. We found fair adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines, with significant opportunities to extend surveillance intervals and improve adherence to best practices.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings.

METHODS

Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18).

CONCLUSIONS

With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

The Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation and quality improving project based on international standards

Background and study aims  Accreditation of endoscopy services, using valid quality indicators, may address failures to comply with quality standards between endoscopy services. The aim of this work was to present the Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation model and its effectiveness. Methods  A team of eight endoscopists identified quality indicators derived from international guidelines and assessed them in each center voluntarily requesting accreditation. During a 1-day site visit, two expert endoscopists, the representative of the independent and international administrative certification body and a professional nurse evaluated the endoscopy center, by direct observation of the endoscopy team and examination of the medical records Results  In all centers we noted shortcomings in instrument reprocessing. In 30 of 40 centers (75 %) the information in the nursing charts was incomplete. Sampling for Helicobacter pylori had not been done in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). In six of 40 centers (15 %) the adenoma detection rate for each endoscopist had not been evaluated. Post-polypectomy intervals were inappropriate in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). We noted a statistically significant difference ( P  < 0.001) between the answers to the SIED checklist of indicators submitted to the inspection team for accreditation before the site visit and the situation found for colonoscopy on site. As of June 30, 2018, 18 endoscopy centers had been accredited and 10 centers had not yet being accredited because they had not completed the measures to correct points raised at the visits. Conclusions  Numerous Italian endoscopy centers fail to meet important quality indicators. Our accreditation program can provide means for detecting these problems and correcting them by implementing SIED standards.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy

Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.

Trainees' knowledge and application of guideline recommendations for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Data shows that practicing physicians don't recommend colorectal (CRC) screening and surveillance as suggested by guidelines. We assessed knowledge of CRC guidelines in medical trainees.

METHODS

A survey assessing confidence and knowledge of published CRC guidelines was emailed to program directors (PDs) of Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education approved training programs in the United States. PDs were requested to forward it to trainees. We analyzed trainees' knowledge by answers to clinical vignettes and identification of factors required by guidelines for screening and post polypectomy colonoscopy interval. We compared confidence and knowledge by specialty.

RESULTS

586 trainees in internal medicine (159), family medicine and primary care (147), gastroenterology (114), general surgery (51), ob/gyn (78), urology (13), and colorectal surgery (13) responded. 97% reported following guidelines. 68% and 50% stated confidence recalling screening and surveillance guidelines, respectively. 16% and 8% correctly identified all factors and answered corresponding vignettes for screening and surveillance, respectively. Overall accuracy of screening ranged between 11-23% and was not different between specialties (p = 0.11) while significant differences were noted between specialties in surveillance knowledge (0-39%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

United States trainees' CRC screening and surveillance knowledge is poor. Measures are needed to enhance knowledge of CRC guidelines.

Current state and future direction of screening tool for colorectal cancer

As the second-most-common cause of cancer death, colorectal cancer (CRC) has been recognized as one of the biggest health concerns in advanced countries. The 5-year survival rate for patients with early-stage CRC is significantly better than that for patients with CRC detected at a late stage. The primary target for CRC screening and prevention is advanced neoplasia, which includes both CRC itself, as well as benign but histologically advanced adenomas that are at increased risk for progression to malignancy. Prevention of CRC through detection of advanced adenomas is important. It is, therefore, necessary to develop more efficient detection methods to enable earlier detection and therefore better prognosis. Although a number of CRC diagnostic methods are currently used for early detection, including stool-based tests, traditional colonoscopy, etc., they have not shown optimal results due to several limitations. Hence, development of more reliable screening methods is required in order to detect the disease at an early stage. New screening tools also need to be able to accurately diagnose CRC and advanced adenoma, help guide treatment, and predict the prognosis along with being relatively simple and non-invasive. As part of such efforts, many proposals for the early detection of colorectal neoplasms have been introduced. For example, metabolomics, referring to the scientific study of the metabolism of living organisms, has been shown to be a possible approach for discovering CRC-related biomarkers. In addition, a growing number of high-performance screening methodologies could facilitate biomarker identification. In the present, evidence-based review, the authors summarize the current state as recognized by the recent guideline recommendation from the American Cancer Society, US Preventive Services Task Force and the United States Multi-Society Task Force and discuss future direction of screening tools for colorectal cancer. Further, we highlight the most interesting publications on new screening tools, like molecular biomarkers and metabolomics, and discuss these in detail.

Poor Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines in a National Cohort of Digestive Disease Specialists

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective and prevents death from CRC if used appropriately. Physicians do not recommend CRC screening according to guidelines. Physician-related factors associated with CRC screening knowledge are unknown.

AIMS

We tested the accuracy of CRC screening knowledge in a nationwide cohort of practicing and trainee physicians and assessed respondent's interest in a mobile app to improve appropriate CRC screening use.

METHODS

An electronic survey was emailed to practicing gastroenterology professionals and medical and surgical trainees. We assessed accuracy of responses compared to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. We assessed factors associated with higher accuracy of knowledge, frequency of workplace smartphone use, and interest in a smartphone app to aid CRC screening and surveillance recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 1432 responses were received. Hundred percent accuracy was noted in 22% of respondents for screening and 37% for surveillance. Factors associated with higher accuracy of screening guidelines included more recent training completion; academic practice; performing 21-100 colonoscopies per month (vs. < 21 or > 100). Higher accuracy of surveillance guidelines was associated with more recent training completion; academic practice; being a third-year fellow. In total, 53% use smartphones at least "often" in patient care. In total, 87% would use a CRC screening and surveillance smartphone app.

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy in applying CRC screening guidelines by gastroenterologists is poor. Smartphone use for patient care is prevalent. Our data show a high interest in a CRC screening/surveillance mobile app. Mobile tools appear an opportunity for rapid access and an increased adherence to CRC screening guidelines.

Guideline Adherence to Colonoscopic Surveillance Intervals after Polypectomy in Korea: Results from a Nationwide Survey

Background/Aims

People around the world are increasingly choosing to undergo colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy. As a result, guideline adherence to postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance has drawn increasing attention. The present study was performed to assess recognition and adherence to guidelines among primary care physicians and gastroenterologists and to identify characteristics associated with compliance.

Methods

A nationwide sample of primary care physicians employed at cancer screening facilities and registered members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were recruited. Participants were asked to complete a survey of six hypothetical clinical scenarios designed to assess their potential course of action in response to screening or follow-up colonoscopy results. Frequencies and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for guideline adherence were estimated.

Results

The proportions of doctors recommending shortened colonoscopy surveillance intervals for low- and high-risk adenomas were greater than 90% among primary physicians and were much lower among gastroenterologists. Guideline adherence was relatively good among groups of doctors who were young, had a specialty in gastroenterology, worked at tertiary hospitals, and cared for an appropriate number of patients.

Conclusions

The present study reveals a remaining discrepancy between practitioner recommendations and current guidelines for postpolypectomy surveillance. Several factors were shown to be related to guideline adherence, suggesting a need for appropriate control and continuing education or training programs among particular groups of practitioners.

Young patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas: current endoscopic surveillance practices and outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For young individuals (age <40 years) without strong family histories that would put them at risk for genetic colorectal cancer syndromes, it is unclear if national Multi-Society Task Force surveillance recommendations apply or if endoscopists follow these guideline recommendations when such patients are incidentally found to have adenoma(s) on colonoscopy.

METHODS

We reviewed records on young (age <40 years) patients, with either no family history or only a moderate family history (1 first-degree family member with colorectal cancer at age ≥50), who were found to have neoplastic polyp(s) on their index colonoscopy. We assessed the pattern of endoscopist surveillance recommendations, whether endoscopist recommendations complied with national guidelines, and compliance with surveillance recommendations.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one subjects were included, of whom 19 (13.5%) had a moderate family history of colorectal cancer. For patients with non-high-risk findings, 27.7% were asked to repeat their colonoscopy in ≤3 years and 99.0% within 5 years. Endoscopist surveillance recommendation compliance rates with national guidelines were >65.0% for low-risk neoplasia but lower for high-risk (40.0%), nonpolypoid (44.2%), and serrated neoplasia (54.2%, P < .001 for all). Subjects whose endoscopist recommendations were noncompliant with guidelines were usually recalled too early (96%). Only 24.7% of subjects were actually compliant with endoscopist surveillance recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

For young patients with neoplastic polyp(s) but no strong family history, most endoscopists complied with national guidelines and recommended repeat colonoscopy in 3 to 5 years. However, relatively few patients were compliant with repeat colonoscopy recommendations. For most cases that were noncompliant with guidelines, patients were recalled too early as opposed to too late.

An integrated electronic health record-based workflow to improve management of colonoscopy-generated pathology results

Purpose

Managing and communicating colonoscopy-generated pathology results and appropriate follow-up recommendations can be challenging. To improve this process, we developed and implemented a standardized electronic health record-based intervention with built-in decision support.

Methods

Fourteen attending endoscopists performed enough colonoscopies to qualify for the study. For each, we randomly sampled and abstracted data from 35 colonoscopies that met prespecified inclusion criteria during both the pre-intervention and also post-intervention periods. Follow-up recommendations were compared to guidelines. We used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to assess the change in the proportion of cases with guideline-concordant results, the proportion with a documented follow-up result letter, and the median time to letter completion. A brief survey assessed endoscopists’ satisfaction with the intervention.

Results

In total, 1,947 colonoscopies were extracted, of which 968 met inclusion criteria. The proportion of follow-up recommendations that were guideline concordant increased from a median of 82.9% pre-intervention to 85.7% post-intervention (P=0.72). The proportion of observations with a documented follow-up result letter increased from a median of 88.9% pre-intervention to 97.1% post-intervention (P=0.07). The number of calendar days between the date of the colonoscopy and the date the letter was sent decreased from a median of 7.7 days pre-intervention to 6.8 days post-intervention (P=0.79). Eighty-six percentage of endoscopists were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the overall process.

Conclusion

The intervention was not associated with a statistically significant increase in guideline-concordant recommendations or efficiency measures, perhaps due to high baseline performance. The intervention was well received by endoscopists and captured data necessary for important downstream processes.

The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Background/Aims

Little is known for the capacity and quality of colonoscopy, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea.

Methods

We surveyed representative endoscopists of 72 endoscopy units from June to August 2015, using a 36-item questionnaire regarding colonoscopic capacity, quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines of each hospitals.

Results

Among the 62 respondents who answered the questionnaire, 51 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 incomplete answers. Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to current practice, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42. The quality of colonoscopy was variable as reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were considerably variable (29.4%–94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.

Conclusions

The potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy should be underlined in Korea.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests.

METHODS

Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Interval colorectal cancer: a challenging field in colorectal cancer

Accumulated evidence has shown that colonoscopy may not be a perfect tool in screening and reducing the incidence of the colorectal cancer (CRC), because interval CRC (I-CRC), a specific subgroup of CRCs, has been challenging the traditional detection technology in recent years. I-CRC is accounting for an increasing proportion in CRCs. However, the effective procedures to prevent and supervise I-CRC need to be explored. In this review, we summarized the incidence, causes, risk factors, characteristics and management of I-CRC. It would promote the awareness of the special value in the education and training for the gastroenterologists, which plays an important role in conquering CRC.

Correlating colorectal cancer risk with field carcinogenesis progression using partial wave spectroscopic microscopy

Prior to the development of a localized cancerous tumor, diffuse molecular, and structural alterations occur throughout an organ due to genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. This process is known as field carcinogenesis. In this study, we used partial wave spectroscopic (PWS) microscopy to explore the progression of field carcinogenesis by measuring samples collected from 190 patients with a range of colonic history (no history, low-risk history, and high-risk history) and current colon health (healthy, nondiminutive adenomas (NDA; ≥5 mm and <10 mm), and advanced adenoma [AA; ≥10 mm, HGD, or >25% villous features]). The low-risk history groups include patients with a history of NDA. The high-risk history groups include patients with either a history of AA or colorectal cancer (CRC). PWS is a nanoscale-sensitive imaging technique which measures the organization of intracellular structure. Previous studies have shown that PWS is sensitive to changes in the higher-order (20-200 nm) chromatin topology that occur due to field carcinogenesis within histologically normal cells. The results of this study show that these nanoscale structural alterations are correlated with a patient's colonic history, which suggests that PWS can detect altered field carcinogenic signatures even in patients with negative colonoscopies. Furthermore, we developed a model to calculate the 5-year risk of developing CRC for each patient group. We found that our data fit this model remarkably well (R²  = 0.946). This correlation suggests that PWS could potentially be used to monitor CRC progression less invasively and in patients without adenomas, which opens PWS to many potential cancer care applications.

Advances in CRC Prevention: Screening and Surveillance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

The Drivers of Discretionary Utilization: Clinical History Versus Physician Supply

PURPOSE

Because the effect of physician supply on utilization remains controversial, literature based on non-Medicare populations is sparse, and a physician supply expansion is under way, the potential for physician-induced demand across diverse populations is important to understand. A substantial proportion of gastrointestinal endoscopies may be inappropriate. The authors analyzed the impact of physician supply, practice patterns, and clinical history on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, defined as discretionary) among patients hospitalized with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

METHOD

Among 34,344 patients hospitalized for LGIB from 2004 to 2009, 43.1% and 21.3% had a colonoscopy or EGD, respectively, during the index hospitalization or within 6 months after. Linking to the Dartmouth Atlas via patients' hospital referral region, gastroenterologist density and hospital care intensity (HCI) index were ascertained. Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and race/education indicators, the association of gastroenterologist density, HCI index, and history of upper gastrointestinal disease with EGD was estimated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

EGD was not associated with gastroenterologist density or HCI index, but was associated with a history of upper gastrointestinal disease (OR 2.30; 95% CI 2.17-2.43), peptic ulcer disease (OR 4.82; 95% CI 4.26-5.45), and liver disease (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with LGIB, large variation in gastroenterologist density did not predict EGD, but relevant clinical history did, with association strengths commensurate with risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In the scenario studied, no evidence was found that specialty physician supply increases will result in more discretionary care within commercially insured populations.

Predictors of primary care provider adoption of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening

PURPOSE

To examine factors influencing primary care provider (PCP) adoption of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health record (EHR) data with PCP survey data. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were not up-to-date with CRC screening and if they had CTC insurance coverage in the year prior to survey administration. PCPs were included if they had at least one eligible patient in their panel and completed the survey (final sample N = 95 PCPs; N = 6245 patients). Survey data included perceptions of CRC screening by any method, as well as CTC specifically. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for PCP and clinic predictors of CRC screening by any method and screening with CTC.

RESULTS

Substantial variation in CTC use was seen among PCPs and clinics (range 0-16% of CRC screening). Predictors of higher CTC use were PCP perceptions that CTC is effective in reducing CRC mortality, higher number of perceived advantages to screening with CTC, and Internal Medicine specialty. Factors not associated with CTC use were PCP perceptions of less organizational capacity to meet demand for colonoscopy, number of perceived disadvantages to screening with CTC, PCP age and gender, and clinic factors.

CONCLUSION

Significant variation in PCP adoption of CTC exists. PCP perceptions of CTC and specialty practice were related to CTC adoption. Strategies to increase PCP adoption of CTC for CRC screening should include emphasis on the effectiveness and advantages of CTC.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Primary Care Provider Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers: Implications for Designing Quality Improvement Interventions

Aims. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Increasing CRC screening rates requires interventions targeting multiple barriers at each level of the healthcare organization (patient, provider, and system). We examined groups of primary care providers (PCPs) based on perceptions of screening barriers and the relationship to CRC screening rates to inform approaches for conducting barrier assessments prior to designing and implementing quality improvement interventions. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking EHR and survey data. PCPs with complete survey responses for questions addressing CRC screening barriers were included (N = 166 PCPs; 39,430 patients eligible for CRC screening). Cluster analysis identified groups of PCPs. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for predictors of membership in one of the PCP groups. Results. We found two distinct groups: (1) PCPs identifying multiple barriers to CRC screening at patient, provider, and system levels (N = 75) and (2) PCPs identifying no major barriers to screening (N = 91). PCPs in the top half of CRC screening performance were more likely to identify multiple barriers than the bottom performers (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.43–7.08). Conclusions. High-performing PCPs can more effectively identify CRC screening barriers. Targeting high-performers when conducting a barrier assessment is a novel approach to assist in designing quality improvement interventions for CRC screening.

Determining the optimal surveillance interval after a colonoscopic polypectomy for the Korean population?

Background/Aims

Western surveillance strategies cannot be directly adapted to the Korean population. The aim of this study was to estimate the risk of metachronous neoplasia and the optimal surveillance interval in the Korean population.

Methods

Clinical and pathological data from index colonoscopy performed between June 2006 and July 2008 and who had surveillance colonoscopies up to May 2015 were compared between low- and high-risk adenoma (LRA and HRA) groups. The 3- and 5-year cumulative risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasia in both groups were compared.

Results

Among 895 eligible patients, surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 399 (44.6%). Most (83.3%) patients with LRA had a surveillance colonoscopy within 5 years and 70.2% of patients with HRA had a surveillance colonoscopy within 3 years. The cumulative risk of metachronous advanced adenoma was 3.2% within 5 years in the LRA group and only 1.7% within 3 years in the HRA group. The risk of metachronous neoplasia was similar between the surveillance interval of <5 and ≥5 years in the LRA group; however, it was slightly higher at surveillance interval of ≥3 than <3 years in the HRA group (9.4% vs. 2.4%). In multivariate analysis, age and the ≥3-year surveillance interval were significant independent risk factors for metachronous advanced adenoma (P=0.024 and P=0.030, respectively).

Conclusions

Patients had a surveillance colonoscopy before the recommended guidelines despite a low risk of metachronous neoplasia. However, the risk of metachronous advanced adenoma was increased in elderly patients and those with a ≥3-year surveillance interval.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of candidate agents (low and high dose aspirin, non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, alone or in combination) for prevention of advanced metachronous neoplasia (that is, occurring at different times after resection of initial neoplasia) in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia, through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, Web of Science, from inception to 15 October 2015; clinical trial registries.

STUDY SELECTION

 Randomized controlled trials in adults with previous colorectal neoplasia, treated with candidate chemoprevention agents, and compared with placebo or another candidate agent. Primary efficacy outcome was risk of advanced metachronous neoplasia; safety outcome was serious adverse events.

DATA EXTRACTION

 Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities (ranging from 1, indicating that the treatment has a high likelihood to be best, to 0, indicating the treatment has a high likelihood to be worst). Quality of evidence was appraised with GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

 15 randomized controlled trials (12 234 patients) comparing 10 different strategies were included. Compared with placebo, non-aspirin NSAIDs were ranked best for preventing advanced metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.24 to 0.53; SUCRA=0.98; high quality evidence), followed by low-dose aspirin (0.71, 0.41 to 1.23; SUCRA=0.67; low quality evidence). Low dose aspirin, however, was ranked the safest among chemoprevention agents (0.78, 0.43 to 1.38; SUCRA=0.84), whereas non-aspirin NSAIDs (1.23, 0.95 to 1.64; SUCRA=0.26) were ranked low for safety. High dose aspirin was comparable with low dose aspirin in efficacy (1.12, 0.59 to 2.10; SUCRA=0.58) but had an inferior safety profile (SUCRA=0.51). Efficacy of agents for reducing metachronous colorectal cancer could not be estimated.

CONCLUSIONS

 Among individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia, non-aspirin NSAIDs are the most effective agents for the prevention of advanced metachronous neoplasia, whereas low dose aspirin has the most favorable risk:benefit profile.

REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO (CRD42015029598).

Organization of surveillance in GI practice

BACKGROUND

Several reports documented an inefficient utilisation of available resources, as well as a suboptimal compliance with surveillance recommendations. Although, evidence suggests that organisational issues can influence the quality of care delivered, surveillance protocols are usually based on non-organized approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (publication date: 01/2000-06/2016) on PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for guidelines, or consensus statements, for surveys of practice, reporting information about patients, or providers attitudes and behaviours, for intervention studies to enhance compliance with guidelines. Related articles were also scrutinised. Based on the clinical relevance and burden on endoscopy services this review was focused on surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus, IBD and post-polypectomy surveillance of colonic adenomas.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines are generally recognising structure and process requirements influencing delivery of surveillance interventions, while less attention had been devoted to transitions and interfaces in the care process. Available evidence from practice surveys is suggesting the need to design organizational strategies aimed to enable patients to attend and providers to deliver timely and appropriate care. Well designed studies assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions in this setting are however lacking. Indirect evidence from screening settings would suggest that the implementation of automated standardized recall systems, utilisation of clinical registries, removing financial barriers, could improve appropriateness of use and compliance with recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of sound evidence regarding utility and methodology of surveillance can contribute to explain the observed variability in providers and patients attitudes and in compliance with the recommended surveillance.

Surveillance after colorectal polyp removal

Surveillance colonoscopy is aimed to reduce CRC incidence and mortality by removing adenomas and detecting CRC in early stage. However, colonoscopy is an invasive and expensive procedure and surveillance colonoscopy should be targeted at those who are most likely to benefit at the minimum frequency required to protect for cancer. Surveillance recommendations are based on guidelines, but the recommendations in those guidelines are based on moderate to low quality evidence and adherence to these guidelines is poor. As surveillance colonoscopy is one of the main indications for colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopies are filling colonoscopy lists, the current surveillance practice results in spending lots of money and capacity in a suboptimal way. Randomized controlled trials to compare surveillance intervals are not available. However, current evidence based on several case-control and cohort studies suggests there is no need for surveillance in patients with low-risk adenomas, i.e. 1-2 adenomas smaller than 10 mm. Patients with 3 or more adenomas or any adenoma larger than 10 mm seem to be the ones at real risk for metachronous adenomas or cancer. In those patients, surveillance colonoscopy is indicated at 3 years after baseline until ongoing studies will confirm the safety of enlarging this interval. Randomized controlled trials and experimental research are important in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence for the optimization of follow-up strategies for patients with adenomas and serrated polyps.