Colonoscopy Quality Indicators Research Articles

Adenoma detection rate of screening colonoscopy among age 40–75 years: Implications for lowering the age for colorectal cancer screening

AbstractIncidence of early‐onset colorectal cancer is on the rise, prompting updated international guidelines recommending screening for average‐risk individuals starting at age 45. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) serves as a crucial quality indicator for colonoscopy (CFS), with a current benchmark of 25% for screening CFS starting at age 50. However, the impact of lowering the screening age on ADR remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the ADR in average‐risk individuals who undergo screening colonoscopy at an age older than 40. Participants who underwent a complete colonoscopy for health examination at a medical center between January 2014 and February 2020 were enrolled in this study. We excluded colonoscopies performed on individuals younger than 40 years of age or older than 75 years of age, as well as those conducted for surveillance purposes. ADR was defined as the percentage of colonoscopies with at least one colorectal adenoma detected. We calculated the ADR for different age groups, including 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, and 55–75, to understand the age‐specific ADR of screening colonoscopy. Additionally, we evaluated the ADR among participants who started screening colonoscopy at ages ≥40, ≥45, and ≥50 to understand the impact of starting age on ADR. A p value <.05, determined by the chi‐square test, was considered significant. Among the 33 073 CFS completed during the study period, 5852 CFS examined in patients aged younger than 40 years, 344 CFS examined in patients aged older than 75, and 6881 CFS with surveillance indication were excluded, leaving 19 996 CFS enrolled for analysis. The mean age of the participants was 53, with 57% being male and 43% being female. The ADR for the age groups of 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, and 55–75 were 28.0% (1058/3778), 31.8% (1191/3741), 35.6% (1387/3891), and 44.2% (3794/8586), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < .01). The ADR for age ≥40, ≥45, and ≥50 were 37.2% (7430/19996), 40.1% (6372/15874), and 41.5% (5181/12477), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < .01). The findings of our study indicate that there are notable differences in ADR among various age groups. Lowering the screening age might result in a decrease in the overall ADR. However, our results suggest that even if CRC screening begins at age 40 or 45, the current benchmark of 25% ADR for screening colonoscopy may still be maintained. These findings provide valuable insights into the age‐ and gender‐specific prevalence of adenomas in colonoscopy screening and can be used to inform future screening guidelines and recommendations.

Adenoma detection rate as a quality indicator for colonoscopy.

Objective: To determine the quality of colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate in the existing local settings. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Department of Gastroenterology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Period: February 2022 to August 2022. Methods: We analyzed patients having age 18 years or older, of any gender, and who had colonoscopy indications and were required to have a screening colonoscopy for diagnostic purposes. The number of procedures with at least one polyp or adenoma was classified as the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Result: Total 210 patients were enrolled into the study with median age of 41.5 (29.8-56.3) years and majority were males (n=46, 69.5%). The most frequent indication for colonoscopy was constipation (n=72, 34.3%) followed by bleeding (n=78, 37.1%), chronic diarrhea (n=36, 17.1%), both constipation and diarrhea (n=21, 10%) and altered bowel habits (n=3, 1.4%). PDR and ADR were 16.2% (n=34) and 10% (n=21) respectively. Age was significantly higher among patients who were found to have polyp (p<0.001) and adenomas (p<0.001). Frequency of polyps (p=0.010) and adenomas (p=0.007) were significantly higher in male patients. Conclusion: The current research discovered a low rate of adenoma detection in people receiving colorectal cancer screening, and it did not meet the quality benchmarks that have been associated with higher rates of early diagnosis and cancer prevention.

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with increasing incidence and mortality in Latin America. CRC screening programs can reduce disease burden, but information on screening programs in Latin America is limited. To describe characteristics (eg, type of program, uptake, neoplastic yield) of CRC screening programs in Latin America. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, LILACS, and SciELO were searched from inception to February 2023. Relevant references from bibliographies, conference proceedings, and gray literature were considered. The search strategy included English, Spanish, and Portuguese terms. Included were studies of CRC screening programs in Latin America using fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy as the primary screening method. Four reviewers independently assessed study eligibility based on titles, with review of abstracts and full texts as needed. Guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed for data abstraction and quality assessment. Descriptive information was extracted, and data were pooled using a random-effects model. Program performance indicators included rates of participation and FIT positivity, adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), CRC detection rate, and colonoscopy quality indicators. There were 17 studies included from upper middle-income and high-income countries in Latin America with a total of 123 929 participants. Thirteen studies used FIT as the initial screening method, whereas 4 used screening colonoscopy. The participation rate in FIT-based programs was 85.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-91.4%). FIT positivity rates were 15.2% (95% CI, 9.6%-21.8%) for the 50-ng/mL threshold and 9.7% (95% CI, 6.8%-13.0%) for the 100-ng/mL threshold. For FIT-based studies, the pooled ADR was 39.0% (95% CI, 29.3%-49.2%) and CRC detection rate was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-7.9%); for screening colonoscopy-based studies, the pooled ADR was 19.9% (95% CI, 15.5%-24.8%) and CRC detection rate was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that CRC screening in upper middle-income countries in Latin America is feasible, detecting rates of neoplasia comparable with those of high-income regions. Population-based screening programs should be developed or enhanced in these settings. There is a knowledge gap regarding feasibility and yield of screening programs in lower middle-income countries.

Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

Screening colonoscopy as an effective way to prevent colorectal cancer

Introduction. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of those cancer types which have many worldwide organized screening programs. Those screening programs help to reduce colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Aim. To evaluate the results of screening colonoscopy with simultaneous removal of benign epithelial formations on an outpatient basis using “cold” methods, as well as its effectiveness in the prevention of CRC. Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of the results of colonoscopy in outpatient conditions performed at the N. I. Pirogov Government City Clinic (Orenburg) for the period 2018–2021 was performed. The study included indicators of screening colonoscopy performed in asymptomatic patients. The main evaluated parameters are: the type of polyp according to the Paris classification, the results of histological examination, the frequency of complications, as well as the quality indicators of colonoscopy (preparation according to the Boston scale, the time of removal of the device, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR)). Results. A total of 4,588 screening colonoscopies were performed, frequency of adenomas detection – 35,3 %, 1,041 neoplasms were removed (of which 456 (44 %) neoplasms were removed with biopsy forceps, 585 (56 %) neoplasms were removed with a cold loop as a single block). In 622 (59,7 %) cases, the macroscopic form of neoplasms is type 0–IIa, in 326 (31.3 %) – type 0–Is, in 93 (9 %) – type IIa + IIc. According to the results of histological examination, the sessile type of structure was diagnosed in 158 (15.2 %) cases, non – sessile – in 883 (84.8 %). In 276 (26.5 %) cases, were detected adenomas with micro-foci of adenocarcinoma (tumor in situ). During the study period (2018–2021), one complication (0.09 %) of outpatient polypectomy by the “cold” method was observed. This complication was manifested by automatically stopped bleeding. Conclusion. Screening colonoscopy is one of the most effective diagnostic methods to detect CRC in asymptomatic patients. The “cold” polypectomy method has an important role in the prevention of CRC, as it is a safe procedure which can be performed on an outpatient basis.

Colonoscopy withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates in a large, multi-site colorectal surgery practice.

433 Background: Colonoscopy withdrawal times (CWT) and adenoma detection rates (ADR) have been extensively correlated in medical literature. The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 guidelines recommend measuring quality indicators for screening colonoscopy that achieve minimum benchmarks for ADR (>=25%) and CWT (>=6 minutes). In October 2022, M Desai et al reported in a sample of 1142 patients (46% screening and 54% surveillance), ADR increased as withdrawal time increased from 6 to 13 minutes. Results demonstrated a 6% increase per minute in the likelihood of detecting an additional patient with at least 1 adenoma. Texas Colon and Rectal Specialists routinely reviews ADR’s and CWT’s. This retrospective descriptive study presents a concise review of the correlation between CWT’s and ADR’s in a homogenous set of screening and surveillance patients. Methods: We examined 7164 abstracted colonoscopy records from 31 colorectal surgeons. Diagnostic colonoscopies were excluded. We studied patients between 45 and 84 years of age at the time of the colonoscopy. Each patient was noted for the colonoscopy CWT as well as whether at least one adenomatous polyp was detected. These data were reported in a scatter plot of ADR over CWT as well as a bubble chart of ADR over CWT by each surgeon. A two-sample t-test confirmed a statistical difference between the mean CWT of the adenoma-positive patients and those that were not positive. Results: Consistent with the literature, ADR increased with CWT. The mean CWT was 14.2 minutes in the group where an adenoma was detected (n=3289) and 10.6 minutes in the group where an adenoma was not detected (n=3875), (p<0.05 and CI of 95%). Mean CWT was 12.3 minutes, mode was 7 minutes, median was 10.25 minutes, and the mean ADR was 45.9%. The best ADR performance was 62.5% at a mean of 26.8 minutes CWT and the worst performance was 27.7% at 10 minutes CWT. A bubble chart demonstrates the relationship between CWT and ADR by surgeon with the bubbles representing individual colonoscopy volumes. Consistent with the literature, ADR increased with CWT. The mean CWT was 14.2 minutes in the group where an adenoma was detected (n=3289) and 10.6 minutes in the group where an adenoma was not detected (n=3875), (p<0.05 and CI of 95%). Mean CWT was 12.3 minutes, mode was 7 minutes, median was 10.25 minutes, and the mean ADR was 45.9%. The best ADR performance was 62.5% at a mean of 26.8 minutes CWT and the worst performance was 27.7% at 10 minutes CWT. Conclusions: Our data indicate a significant relationship between CWT and ADR, and may suggest that CWT well beyond six minutes may yield better ADR’s. Furthermore, scope volume appears to play a role in the achievement of higher ADR’s, though this would require further investigation for optimal CWT, minimum expected ADR, optimal techniques and bowel prep, and emerging assistive technology.

Post-colonoscopy rectal cancer in Swedish patients with Crohn's disease 2001-2015: a population-based case review study.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is a key quality indicator of colonoscopy, and PCCRC rates are high in the IBD population. Rectal cancer, an important risk factor for PCCRC among patients with Crohn's disease (CD), has not previously been examined. Swedish adult patients with CD who underwent a colonoscopy within 36 months before a rectal cancer diagnosis between 2001 and 2015 were identified through the National Patient and Cancer registers. Their medical records were reviewed and a root-cause analysis and a sub-categorization according to the World Endoscopic Organization (WEO) were performed. Of 24 patients with CD and PCCRC in the rectum, 79% were men and the median age was 50 (IQR 45-59) years. The median disease duration was 21.5 (IQR 19-30) years. The cancer was located in the distal 5 cm of the rectum in 63% of the cases. Retroversion in the rectum was reported in only one case. The most common plausible explanation for PCCRC was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate' (63%); when adding retroversion in the rectum, instead 77% of examinations were considered negative but deemed as inadequate. The most common PCCRC sub-category was non-interval type C (54%) and B (37%). Among those with type C, 38% should have been included in surveillance according to present guidelines. Better adherence to surveillance guidelines and more meticulous follow-up is warranted. The importance of performing rectal palpation and retroversion in the rectum is underscored and we suggest that this is included in the WEO algorithm.

Artificial intelligence–assisted real-time monitoring of effective withdrawal time during colonoscopy: a novel quality marker of colonoscopy

Background and aimsThe importance of withdrawal time during colonoscopy cannot be overstated in mitigating the risk of missed lesions and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. We evaluated a novel colonoscopy quality metric called the effective withdrawal time (EWT), which is an artificial intelligence (AI) derived quantitative measure of quality withdrawal time and their association with various colonic lesions detection rates, as compared with standard withdrawal time (SWT). MethodsA total of 350 video recordings of colonoscopy withdrawal (from caecum to anus) were assessed by the new AI model. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to different quintiles of EWT. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for baseline covariates, was used to determine the adjusted odd ratios (OR) for EWT on lesion detection rates, with the lowest quintile as reference. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of EWT was compared with SWT. ResultsThe crude ADR in different quintiles of EWT, from lowest to highest, was 10.0%, 31.4%, 33.3%, 53.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. The ORs of detecting adenoma and polyp were significantly higher in all top 4th quintiles when compared to the lowest quintile. Each minute increase in EWT was associated with a 49% increase in ADR (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.36 to 1.65). The AUC of EWT was also significantly higher than SWT on adenoma detection (0.80 [95%CI: 0.75 – 0.84] vs 0.70 [95%CI: 0.64-0.74], p <0.01). ConclusionsThe AI-derived EWT monitoring is a promising novel quality indicator for colonoscopy, which is more associated with ADR than SWT.

What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThe rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE).AimsTo evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and “booster”. The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models.ResultsTwenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8–77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7–87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0–85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8–80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4–87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9–89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as “booster” [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3–90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048].ConclusionsMain quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.

Impact of a Time-Related Benchmark on the Adenoma Detection Rate in Surveillance Colonoscopy: A STROBE Statement-Oriented Cross-Sectional Cohort Study.

Colorectal adenomas are precursor lesions of globally increasing colorectal cancer. Hence, a high adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy is pivotal. We investigated the clinical impact of stratified colonoscopy observation time combined with observation time/intubation time ratio on the detection of colorectal adenomas. We conducted a single-center retrospective study including 369 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical tests between May 2021 and April 2022. The primary outcome measure was the impact of the stratified observation time and observation time/ intubation time ratio (category 1: <6.0 minutes and <1.0, category 2: <6.0 minutes and ≥1.0, category 3: ≥6.0 minutes and <1.0, and category 4: ≥6.0 minutes and ≥1.0) on adenoma detection rate. Cecum intubation was obtained in 367 patients (99.5%). Adenomas were detected in 226 patients (61.2%). From the univariate analysis, age ≥53 years, habitual alcohol intake, colonoscopy attachment (+), and observation time with observation time/intubation time ratio categories 3 and 4 were determined as significant factors for adenoma detection rate. From the logistic regression analysis, age ≥ 53 years (odds ratio: 4.86, 95% CI: 2.25-10.52), habitual alcohol intake (odds ratio: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.33-3.82), category 3 (odds ratio: 3.66, 95% CI: 1.81-7.45), and category 4 (odds ratio: 5.60, 95% CI: 2.92-10.73) were significant factors for adenoma detection rate. We propose the observation time with observation time/intubation time ratio combined benchmark (with categories' thresholds based on observation time >6 minutes and scope withdrawal time exceeding intubation time [observation time/intubation time ratio > 1]) as a novel colonoscopy quality indicator. These findings represent an important educational message for endoscopists.

An Accurate and Automated Method for Adenoma Detection Rate and Report Card Generation Utilizing Common Electronic Health Records.

To develop an automated method for Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) calculation and report card generation using common electronic health records (EHRs). ADR is the most widely accepted colonoscopy quality indicator and is inversely associated with interval colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, ADR is difficult to efficiently measure and disseminate, due to need for data integration from distinct electronic databases. We migrated data from an endoscopy reporting software (Endosoft) to Epic Reporting Servers where it was combined with anatomic pathology data (Beaker Lab Information System, EPIC Systems). A natural language processing expression was developed to search Beaker pathology reports for accurate identification of adenomatous polyps. A blinded physician manually validated a final cohort of 200 random procedures. ADR report cards were automatically generated utilizing the Crystal Reports feature within EPIC. Validation of the natural language processing algorithm for ADR showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100%. ADR was automatically calculated for 12 endoscopists over a calendar year. Two thousand two hundred seventy-six screening colonoscopies were performed with 775 procedures having a least one adenoma detected, for a total ADR of 34%. Report cards were successfully generated within the EPIC EHR and distributed to endoscopists by secure e-mail. We describe an accurate, automated and scalable process for ADR calculation and reporting utilizing commonly adopted EHRs and data integration methods. By integrating the process of ADR collection and streamlining dissemination of reports, this methodology is poised to enhance colonoscopy quality care across health care networks that use it.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Colonoscopy Quality Monitoring.

High-quality colonoscopy is paramount for colorectal cancer prevention. Since 2009, endoscopists at our institution have received quarterly report cards summarizing individual colonoscopy quality indicators. We have previously shown that implementing this intervention was associated with short-term improvement in adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the long-term effect of continued monitoring on colonoscopy quality is unclear. We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively administered quarterly colonoscopy quality report cards at the Roudebush Veteran's Affairs Medical Center between April 1, 2012, and August 31, 2019. The anonymized reports included individual endoscopists' ADRs, cecal intubation rates, and withdrawal times. Analyses were performed to determine slopes over time for each quality metric by physician and assess for differences based on whether ADRs were calculated quarterly or yearly. Data from the report cards of 17 endoscopists who had performed 24,361 colonoscopies were included. The mean quarterly ADR (±SD) was 51.7% (±11.7%) and mean yearly ADR was 47.2% (±13.8%). There was a small increase in overall ADR based on quarterly and yearly measurements (slope + 0.6%, P = 0.02; and slope +2.7%, P < 0.001, respectively), but no significant change in individual ADRs, cecal intubation rates, or withdrawal times. Analysis of SD of ADRs showed no significant difference between yearly and quarterly measurements ( P = 0.064). Individual endoscopists' ADR SD differences between yearly and quarterly measurements ranged from -4.7% to +6.8%. Long-term colonoscopy quality monitoring paralleled stable improvements in overall ADR. For endoscopists with baseline high ADR, frequent monitoring and reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics may not be necessary.

Comparing Colonoscopy Quality Indicators between Surgeons and Gastroenterologists in A Rural Healthcare System

Background: There is a significant shortage of physicians providing colonoscopies, especially in underserved and rural areas. Surgeons are increasingly filling this role by providing endoscopy services including colonoscopy in these areas. As a result, there has been discussion regarding the quality of colonoscopies performed by different provider specialties, specifically for non-gastroenterologists. The purpose of this study was to compare colonoscopy quality measures between gastroenterologists and surgeons in a rural central New York healthcare system. Methods: All colonoscopies performed by 23 endoscopists, 14 surgeons and 9 gastroenterologists, within a rural healthcare network in 2017 were included as samples within this study, totaling 6265 colonoscopies. These included all diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopies. Quality metrics including withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates were calculated for all providers and the two groups were statistically analyzed and compared using chi-squared testing. Results: 3113 colonoscopies were performed by surgeons (average of 222 per provider) and 3159 were performed by gastroenterologists (average of 351 per provider). Adenoma detection rates for surgeons and gastroenterologists were essentially the same at 31.38% and 31.82%, respectively (p=0.6882). Withdrawal times were slightly longer for surgeons at 13.19 minutes versus 11.02 minutes for gastroenterologists, though this difference was not statistically significant (0.2985). Conclusions: Our results show that surgeons are not inferior to gastroenterologists in performing colonoscopies using the quality metrics of adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times. With the ongoing shortage of endoscopists, surgeons may be able to alleviate some of the burden without reduction in quality.

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Computer-aided detection in real-world colonoscopy: enhancing detection or offering false hope?

Colorectal cancer stands as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, posing an important global health challenge. Screening colonoscopy with removal of neoplastic lesions has been recognised as one of the most effective methods of preventing colorectal cancer. 1 Zauber AG Winawer SJ O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 687-696 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2095) Google Scholar Adenoma detection rate (ADR) serves as a crucial quality indicator in colonoscopy, as it is inversely associated with post-colonoscopy (interval) colorectal cancer. 2 Kaminski MF Regula J Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1795-1803 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1431) Google Scholar However, it is estimated that around a quarter of colorectal neoplasms are missed during a single colonoscopy procedure. 3 van Rijn JC Reitsma JB Stoker J Bossuyt PM van Deventer SJ Dekker E Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 343-350 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1056) Google Scholar To address this issue, computer-aided detection (CADe) systems using artificial intelligence (AI) have emerged as promising tools that allow increased detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, thus enhancing the overall effectiveness of colonoscopy. 4 Misawa M Kudo SE Mori Y et al. Current status and future perspective on artificial intelligence for lower endoscopy. Dig Endosc. 2021; 33: 273-284 Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trialOur findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered. Full-Text PDF

A retrospective analysis of the histology of resected polyps and colonoscopy quality parameters in Belgium.

adenoma detection rate is a well known quality parameter for colonoscopy. However recently other quality parameters have emerged. We wanted to evaluate the histology of the resected polyps, different quality indicators of colonoscopy and post colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) in Belgium and analyzed data about colonoscopies performed between 2008-2015. Reimbursement data on colorectal related medical procedures from the Intermutualistic Agency were linked with data on clinical and pathological staging of colorectal cancer and with histologic data of resected polyps available at the Belgian Cancer Registry over a period covering 8 years (2008-2015). 298,246 polyps were resected in 294,923 colonoscopies, of which 275,182 were adenomas (92 %) and 13,616 were SSLs (4%). There was a significant but small correlation between the different quality parameters and PCCRC. Post colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate after 3 years was 7.29 %. There were marked geographic differences in Belgium concerning adenoma detection rate, sessile adenoma detection rate and post colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Most resected polyps were adenomas, only a small percentage involved sessile serrated lesions. There was a significant correlation between adenoma detection rate and other quality parameters, and a small but significant correlation between PCCRC and the different quality parameters. The lowest post colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate was reached with an ADR of 31.4 % and a SSL-DR of 1.2 %.

Revisiting bowel preparation: The quest for the optimal low‐residue diet duration

Revisiting bowel preparation: The quest for the optimal <scp>low‐residue</scp> diet duration

The Efficacy of AI-Assisted CADe Systems in Colorectal Polyps and Adenomas during Colonoscopies: A Systematic Review

Colorectal polyps and adenomas are a significant health concern that can lead to colorectal cancer. Detecting polyps and adenomas early is important to remove them in a timely manner, reducing the risk of cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI) could assist in identifying polyps and adenomas more efficiently. This study will investigate the potential benefits of AI technology in detecting colorectal adenomas, using AI-assisted colonoscopy diagnostic systems. The goal is to determine if there are differences in detection rates using AI compared to standard colonoscopy methods. PRISMA Statement 2020 guidelines were adhered to in this systematic review. Three databases were searched including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science through February 23, 2023. A combination of the following keywords was used: AI, Artificial, Intelligence, Colorectal, Polyp, Adenoma. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) were additionally meta-analyzed for proportions, and reported as odds ratio (OR), applying 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 9 randomized clinical trials were included in this review, pooling in 6981 participants. The findings were presented systematically, based on the design, technology used, effects on ADR and PDR, and key conclusions. The meta-analytical findings were reported as follows. On applying a random-effects model, the odds ratio (OR) for ADR was 1.532 (95% CI=1.125-2.087), with significant detection favoring CADe systems (P=0.0068). Similarly, when assessing the chance of diagnosing colorectal polyps with CADe systems as an add-on compared to standard colonoscopy alone, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.893 (95% CI=1.687-2.125, P&lt;0.0001). This systematic review found that real-time computer-aided detection during colonoscopy improved the detection of adenomas and polyps. The use of the system is feasible and safe, and future studies should focus on improving colonoscopy quality indicators including the most widely used– ADR. Larger randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this system on adenoma and serrated polyp detection and its effect on endoscopists with lower detection rates.