Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Real-World Validation of a Computer-Aided Diagnosis System for Prediction of Polyp Histology in Colonoscopy: A Prospective Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of polyp histology could support endoscopists in clinical decision-making. However, this has not been validated in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing CADx and endoscopist predictions of polyp histology in real-time colonoscopy. Optical diagnosis based on visual inspection of polyps was made by experienced endoscopists. After this, the automated output from the CADx support tool was recorded. All imaged polyps were resected for histological assessment. Primary outcome was difference in diagnostic performance between CADx and endoscopist prediction of polyp histology. Subgroup analysis was performed for polyp size, bowel preparation, difficulty of location of the polyps, and endoscopist experience.

RESULTS

A total of 661 eligible polyps were resected in 320 patients aged ≥40 years between March 2021 and July 2022. CADx had an overall accuracy of 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.0-75.0), compared with 75.2% (95% CI 71.7-78.4) for endoscopists ( P = 0.023). The sensitivity of CADx for neoplastic polyps was 61.8% (95% CI 56.9-66.5), compared with 70.3% (95% CI 65.7-74.7) for endoscopists ( P < 0.001). The interobserver agreement between CADx and endoscopist predictions of polyp histology was moderate (83.1% agreement, κ 0.661). When there was concordance between CADx and endoscopist predictions, the accuracy increased to 78.1%.

DISCUSSION

The overall diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for neoplastic polyps was higher in experienced endoscopists compared with CADx predictions, with moderate interobserver agreement. Concordance in predictions increased this diagnostic accuracy. Further research is required to improve the performance of CADx and to establish its role in clinical practice.

Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence systems have been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

This single-centre randomised controlled trial (COLO-GENIUS) was done at the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris-Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. All consecutive individuals aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for a total colonoscopy and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 1-3 were screened for inclusion. After the caecum was reached and the colonic preparation was appropriate, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1; computer-generated random numbers list) to either standard colonoscopy or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius 2.0.2; Medtronic). Participants and cytopathologists were masked to study assignment, whereas endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was ADR, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants except those with misplaced consent forms). Safety was analysed in all included patients. According to statistical calculations, 20 endoscopists from the Clinique Paris-Bercy had to include approximately 2100 participants with 1:1 randomisation. The trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440865.

FINDINGS

Between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2592 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 2039 were randomly assigned to standard colonoscopy (n=1026) or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=1013). 14 participants in the standard group and ten participants in the CADe group were then excluded due to misplaced consent forms, leaving 2015 participants (979 [48·6%] men and 1036 [51·4%] women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. ADR was 33·7% (341 of 1012 colonoscopies) in the standard group and 37·5% (376 of 1003 colonoscopies) in the CADe group (estimated mean absolute difference 4·1 percentage points [95% CI 0·0-8·1]; p=0·051). One bleeding event without deglobulisation occurred in the CADe group after a large (>2 cm) polyp resection and resolved after a haemostasis clip was placed during a second colonoscopy.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered.

FUNDING

None.

Effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC versus other bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation has been recently developed to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC compared with those of other bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 1-L PEG-ASC with other bowel preparations published through July 2022. A random-effects model was applied for pooling the results; heterogeneity was expressed as I2.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed significantly higher cleansing success (CS) (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.25-1.81; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and right-colon high-quality cleansing (HQC) (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.21-2.31; p < 0.01, I2 = 43%) with 1-L PEG-ASC compared to the other preparations. The pooled estimate of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) did not significantly differ between the two groups either in the overall (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.87-1.20; p = 0.79, I2 = 0%) or split-dosing regimen subgroup analysis (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.84-1.18; p = 0.94, I2 = 0%). A significantly higher pooled estimate of the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.23-1.84; p<0.01, I2 = 0%) and incidence of AEs (IRR=1.33; 95% CI = 1.11-1.58; p<0.01, I2 = 71%) was observed with 1-L PEG-ASC than with the other preparations. No serious AEs or deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other preparations, 1-L PEG-ASC yielded higher overall CS, higher right-colon HQC rates, and similar ADR. The number of patients with AEs and incidence of the total AEs were significantly higher with 1-L PEG-ASC in the absence of serious AEs.

Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma incidence during post-polypectomy surveillance: a national cohort study in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

BACKGROUND

Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified.

RESULTS

44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66-0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49-0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79-1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk.

CONCLUSION

This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

Bowel cleansing effectiveness and safety of 1L PEG + Asc in the real-world setting: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study of over 13000 patients

Background and study aims Effective bowel cleansing is critical for detecting lesions during colonoscopy, highlighting the importance of bowel preparations. 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbate (Asc) is the only recommended 1L PEG product in Europe and the United States. Its efficacy was demonstrated in large-scale controlled trials and confirmed in smaller-scale real-world studies. However, no large-scale real-world data exist. Patients and methods This observational, retrospective, multicenter study, used outpatient follow-up data from medical records from 10 centers in Spain and two in Portugal. Outpatients aged ≥18 years using 1L PEG + Asc as bowel preparation were included. The main outcome measures were overall adequate colon cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with BBPS score ≥2 in each segment) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS score=3). Results Data from 13169 eligible patients were included. Overall cleansing success was achieved in 89.3% (95%CI 88.7%-89.8%) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon in 49.3% (95%CI 48.4%-50.2%) of patients. For the overnight split-dose and same-day regimens, overall adequate quality cleansing success rate was 94.7% and 86.7% ( P <0.0001) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon rate was 65.4% and 41.4% ( P <0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.3% of patients, with non-completion due to poor preparation in only 0.8%; 2.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Conclusions This large-scale, real-world study demonstrates the effectiveness of 1L PEG + Asc in the total and right colon, with a low percentage of patients with AEs in routine clinical practice.

A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems.

METHODS

In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal.

Setting 6-Minute Minimal Examination Time Improves the Detection of Focal Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Lesions During Endoscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Positive correlation between examination time and neoplasm detection using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been described by observational studies, but the effect of setting minimal examination time still requires investigation.

METHODS

This prospective, 2-stage, interventional study was conducted in 7 tertiary hospitals in China, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing intravenously sedated diagnostic EGDs. In stage I, the baseline examination time was collected without informing the endoscopists. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set for the same endoscopist according to the median examination time of normal EGDs in stage I. The primary outcome was the focal lesion detection rate (FDR), defined as the proportion of subjects with at least one focal lesion among all subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 847 and 1,079 EGDs performed by 21 endoscopists were included in stages I and II, respectively. In stage II, the minimal examination time was set as 6 minutes, and the median time for normal EGD increased from 5.8 to 6.3 minutes ( P < 0.001). Between the 2 stages, the FDR was significantly improved (33.6% vs 39.3%, P = 0.011), and the effect of the intervention was significant (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52; P = 0.022) even after adjusting for subjects' age, smoking status, endoscopists' baseline examination time, and working experience. The detection rate of high-risk lesions (neoplastic lesions and advanced atrophic gastritis) was also significantly higher in stage II (3.3% vs 5.4%, P = 0.029). In the endoscopist-level analysis, all practitioners reached a median examination time of 6 minutes, and the coefficients of variation of FDR (36.9%-26.2%) and examination time (19.6%-6.9%) decreased in stage II.

DISCUSSION

Setting a 6-minute minimal examination time significantly improved the detection of focal lesions during EGDs and has the potential to be implemented for quality improvement.

2L polyethylene glycol combined with castor oil versus 4L polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients

Inpatients are more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation compared to outpatients. Although experts recommend 4L split polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation, bowel preparation with castor oil (CaO) was recently found to reduce the volume of solution required. The aim of the study was to evaluate the cleansing effect and safety of 2L-PEG with Cao in bowel preparation among inpatients. Our study retrospectively analyzed the medical records and colonoscopy reports of inpatients (n = 1251) who underwent colonoscopy in the Affiliated Changzhou No.2 People Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and the inpatients were divided into 2L-PEG-CaO and 4L-PEG group according to different bowel preparation protocols. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is used to assess bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy. Furthermore, we also calculated other outcomes, such as polyp or adenoma detection rates and adverse events. A total of 1251 patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study, 738 were taken 4L-PEG and 513 2L-PEG-CaO. Both inpatients groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The 2L-PEG-CaO group was significantly higher than the 4L-PEG group on both BBPS (7.26 ± 1.75 vs 7.06 ± 1.58, P = .043) and adequate bowel cleansing rates (83.2% vs 77.4%, P = .011). Regarding adverse events, the 4L-PEG group was significantly higher than the 2L-PEG-CaO group on the incidence of abdominal fullness (6.4% vs 9.6%, P = .045) and adverse events (33.7% vs 28.5%, P = .048). The 2L split PEG with CaO preparation increased quality of bowel cleansing and improved tolerance in inpatients. Bowel preparation with 2L-PEG-CaO is suitable alternative to traditional 4L split PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy of inpatients.

Polyps are detected more often in early colonoscopies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the time variation in polyp detection for colonoscopies performed in a tertiary hospital and to explore independent factors that predict polyp detection rate (PDR).

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent colonoscopy for the diagnostic purpose at our endoscopy center in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2021 to December 2021 were reviewed. The start time of included colonoscopies for eligible patients was recorded. PDR and polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) were calculated. The endoscopists' schedules were classified into full-day and half-day shifts according to their participation in the morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 12116 colonoscopies were analyzed, with a PDR of 38.03% for all the patients and 46.38% for patients ≥50 years. PDR and PPC significantly decreased as the day progressed (both p < .001). For patients ≥50 years, PDR declined below 40% at 13:00-13:59 and 16:00-16:59. The PDR in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon for both half-day (p = .019) and full-day procedures (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, start time, patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality significantly predicted PDR (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The polyp detection declined as the day progressed. A continuous work schedule resulted in a subpar PDR. Colonoscopies performed in the morning had a higher PDR than that in the afternoon. Patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality were identified as the independent predictors of PDR.

Adverse events in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Validation of the AGREE classification in a real-life 5-year setting

BACKGROUND

The novel AGREE classification for adverse events (AEs) in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not yet been validated in a real-world setting.

AIMS

Our study aims to evaluate the correlation between the grades of AEs in the ASGE and AGREE classifications and to assess the interobserver agreement of the two classification systems.

METHODS

The correlation and association between the AE grades of the ASGE and AGREE classifications were analyzed using the Spearman rank correlation test and the chi-squared analysis, respectively. A weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient analysis was performed to determine the interobserver agreement of both classification systems.

RESULTS

We prospectively collected the AEs that occurred in our endoscopy unit over the past five years. A total of 226 AEs (226/84,863, 0.3%) occurred. There was a correlation between the ASGE and AGREE classifications (ρ = 0.61) and a moderately significant association (p < 0.01, Cramer's V = 0.7). The interobserver agreement for the ASGE classification was fair (kappa 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.67), whereas it was good for the AGREE classification (kappa 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

The AGREE classification was validated for the first time in a real-world setting and showed a positive correlation and higher interobserver agreement than the ASGE classification.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

Diagnosis and management of small-bowel bleeding

Small-bowel (SB) bleeding is a challenging problem for the clinician, presenting many pitfalls in both diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) have revolutionized the approach to the patient with SB bleeding, allowing for the endoscopic diagnosis and management of what was previously only a surgical matter. The patients' assessment in SB bleeding is of foremost importance, as treatment success relies on a detailed evaluation of clinical history, suspicion for underlying lesions, and a careful selection and timing of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. This review will summarize current state-of-the-art evidence and practice points, to provide the clinician with a comprehensive guide towards the management of SB bleeding.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial

OBJECTIVES

Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time.

METHODS

We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04710251.

Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?

Background

High-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the development of quality assurance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The most widely used marker of mucosal visualisation is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, histological confirmation is required to calculate this. We explored the relationship between core colonoscopy KPIs.

Methods

Data were collected from colonoscopists in eight hospitals in North East England over a 6-month period, as part of a quality improvement study. Procedural information was collected including number of colonoscopies, caecal intubation rate (CIR), ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR). Associations between KPIs and colonoscopy performance were analysed.

Results

9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 16.6% (range 0-36.3, SD 7.4) and 27.2% (range 0-57.5, SD 9.3), respectively. Mean number of colonoscopies conducted in 6 months was 78.5 (range 4-334, SD 61). Mean CIR was 91.2% (range 55.5-100, SD 6.6). Total number of colonoscopies and ADR>15% were significantly associated (p=0.04). Undertaking fewer colonoscopies and using hyoscine butylbromide less frequently was significantly associated with ADR<15%. CIR, endoscopist grade, % male patients, mean patient age and CIR were not significantly related to ADR<15%. In adjusted analyses, factors which affected ADR were PDR and mean patient age.

Conclusion

Colonoscopists who perform fewer than the nationally stipulated minimum of 100 procedures per year had significantly lower ADRs. This study demonstrates that PDR can be used as a marker of ADR; providing age is also considered.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Post-colonoscopy cancer rate at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia: A data linkage analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed as post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The World Endoscopy Organization has recently standardized the definition of PCCRC-3Y (CRC developing within 3 years of a cancer-negative colonoscopy). In the present study, we sought to assess PCCRC-3Y rate, perform root-cause analyses, and identify factors associated with development of PCCRC at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia.

METHODS

All patients undergoing colonoscopy from 2011 to 2018 were matched to a population-based cancer register. PCCRC-3Y rate was assessed for years 2011-2015. All PCCRC cases that developed within 6-48 months after a cancer-negative colonoscopy underwent root-cause analyses. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Among 17 828 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 367 CRC cases were diagnosed during the study period. This included nine PCCRC cases, which developed at a median of 14 months (range 7-34 months) after cancer-negative colonoscopy. The PCCRC-3Y rate for years 2011-2015 was 2.16% (95% CI 0.91-5.15). All nine PCCRC cases were moderately or poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas; seven of nine were early-stage CRC (stages I and II) and six of nine probably represented missed lesions at index colonoscopy despite an apparently adequate examination. History of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (odds ratio [OR] 21.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-103.7, P < 0.001) and diverticulosis (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.4-20.5, P = 0.01) were significantly associated with development of missed CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

In our tertiary referral colonoscopy cohort, PCCRC-3Y rate was 2.16% (95% CI 0.91-5.15). IBD and diverticulosis were significantly associated with risk of PCCRC. The majority of PCCRC lesions were likely missed at index colonoscopy, despite an apparently adequate examination.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials

OBJECTIVE

High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance.

DESIGN

We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients.

RESULTS

The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%).

CONCLUSION

There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02319928.

Clinical value of alarm features for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated.

RESULTS

31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31-88 years; men 36 %-63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2 % to 22 %. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4 % for weight loss to 49 % for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8 % for rectal bleeding to 91.9 % for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

Polyp detection rate and cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Germany

Studies have shown that the quality of colonoscopy influences the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). However, data from Germany on this association are lacking. We aimed to assess cumulative incidence of PCCRC in persons undergoing colonoscopy in Germany according to the physician's polyp detection rate (PDR). Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) with claims data of ~20% of the German population, we included persons with a baseline colonoscopy between 2008 and 2017 and categorized them according to the procedure at baseline (snare polypectomy, forceps polypectomy, no polypectomy). In each subgroup, we distinguished between persons examined by physicians with a PDR in the lowest quartile vs higher quartiles and described cumulative CRC incidence during follow-up. Overall, 822 715 persons examined by 1752 physicians were included. One quarter of the physicians had a PDR ≤21.8% (lowest quartile). In all subgroups, the 5-year cumulative CRC incidence was statistically significantly higher in persons examined by physicians with a PDR ≤21.8% vs >21.8%: It was 69% higher in persons with snare polypectomy (0.88% vs 0.52%), 87% higher in persons with forceps polypectomy (0.58% vs 0.31%), and 48% higher in persons without polypectomy at baseline (0.31% vs 0.21%). In conclusion, we found a substantially increased PCCRC risk in persons examined by physicians with a low PDR in Germany, irrespective of the baseline findings. Our study highlights the importance of a high-quality colonoscopy to maximize the preventive effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence.

Could atmospheric temperature impact on adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy? An observational, single-institution study

PURPOSE

Several risk factors affecting the adequacy of colon cleansing have been proposed during the last decades. However, less is known about the impact that atmospheric aspects could have on adequacy of the bowel cleansing. The study aimed to investigate if the atmospheric temperature could impact on the bowel cleansing during colonoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective maintained database of the colonoscopies performed since 1st August 2017 to 31st March 2020 was retrospective reviewed. The primary outcome of the study was to identify if the atmospheric temperature was associated with inadequate colon cleansing during colonoscopy. Secondary outcome was to identify the other factors associated with an inadequate colon cleansing.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred twenty patients were enrolled. High atmospheric temperature (> 25 °C) significantly influenced the colon cleansing (p < 0.0001). Adequate colon cleansing was negatively influenced by gender (female patients were associated with higher colon cleansing rate, p = 0.013), diabetes (p < 0.0001), previous pelvic surgery (p = 0.001), use of Beta-Blocker (p = 0.001), anti-platelet (p = 0.017), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (p = 0.001), the adoption of 4 L Poly Ethylene Glycol solution (p = 0.009), single-dose regimen (p < 0.0001) low patients' compliance (p < 0.0001), higher age and body mass index (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.025), lower education levels (p < 0.0001). On the contrary, admission to the ward to perform bowel preparation positively impacted on colon cleansing (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Atmospheric temperature could play an important role in the colon cleansing during colonoscopy, being high temperature (> 25 °C) associated with lower rate of adequate bowel cleansing. However, being this relationship never studied before, these results must be confirmed by other studies.

Artificial Intelligence Applied to Colonoscopy: Is It Time to Take a Step Forward?

Growing evidence indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) applied to medicine is here to stay. In gastroenterology, AI computer vision applications have been stated as a research priority. The two main AI system categories are computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx). However, other fields of expansion are those related to colonoscopy quality, such as methods to objectively assess colon cleansing during the colonoscopy, as well as devices to automatically predict and improve bowel cleansing before the examination, predict deep submucosal invasion, obtain a reliable measurement of colorectal polyps and accurately locate colorectal lesions in the colon. Although growing evidence indicates that AI systems could improve some of these quality metrics, there are concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, and large and multicentric randomized studies with strong outcomes, such as post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, are lacking. The integration of all these tasks into one quality-improvement device could facilitate the incorporation of AI systems in clinical practice. In this manuscript, the current status of the role of AI in colonoscopy is reviewed, as well as its current applications, drawbacks and areas for improvement.

Complete endoscopic removal rate of detected colorectal polyps in a real world out-patient practical setting

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy with adenomatous polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. We introduced a strategy of removing all neoplastic polyps in single-session out-patient colonoscopy using cold polypectomy. We aimed to investigate the achievement of single-session complete removal rate of detected colorectal polyps in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included colonoscopy-scheduled 40-79-year-old outpatients, with at least one colorectal neoplasm, between January 2015 and December 2016. Exclusion criteria were: colorectal neoplasms 21 mm or larger in size; pre-examination for colorectal surgery or endoscopic submucosal dissection; colonoscopy performed by health check program; ongoing antithrombotic treatment; inflammatory bowel disease; familial adenomatous polyposis. We defined 'clean colon' as the removal of all detected neoplastic polyps in a single-session colonoscopy. We evaluated clean colon rate, factors relating to clean colon failure and complications.

RESULTS

We evaluated 2527 patients (mean age 68 years; 799 women) with 8203 colorectal polyps (7675 adenomas, 423 serrated lesions, 105 Tis and T1 cancers). In 1-4 mm polyps, cold snare polypectomy (CSP; 51.8%) and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP; 45.8%) were applied. Clean colon rates were 95.1% per patient and 97.1% per lesion. The significant factors denoting clean colon failure were inadequate bowel preparation, ≥5 lesions, and the most advanced estimated histology of adenocarcinoma, on multivariate analyses. Post-polypectomy bleeding requiring endoscopic hemostasis occurred in five patients (0.2%) who had undergone endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Perforation occurred in one patient (0.04%) with EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The clean colon rates were satisfactory in single-session out-patient colonoscopy using cold polypectomy.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Existing Bowel Preparation Quality Scales Are Reliable in the Setting of Centralized Endoscopy Reading

BACKGROUND

Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated.

AIMS

To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers.

METHODS

Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone.

CONCLUSION

All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

A Review of Colonoscopy in Intestinal Diseases

Since the development of the fiberoptic colonoscope in the late 1960s, colonoscopy has been a useful tool to diagnose and treat various intestinal diseases. This article reviews the clinical use of colonoscopy for various intestinal diseases based on present and future perspectives. Intestinal diseases include infectious diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), neoplasms, functional bowel disorders, and others. In cases of infectious diseases, colonoscopy is helpful in making the differential diagnosis, revealing endoscopic gross findings, and obtaining the specimens for pathology. Additionally, colonoscopy provides clues for distinguishing between infectious disease and IBD, and aids in the post-treatment monitoring of IBD. Colonoscopy is essential for the diagnosis of neoplasms that are diagnosed through only pathological confirmation. At present, malignant tumors are commonly being treated using endoscopy because of the advancement of endoscopic resection procedures. Moreover, the characteristics of tumors can be described in more detail by image-enhanced endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy. Colonoscopy can be helpful for the endoscopic decompression of colonic volvulus in large bowel obstruction, balloon dilatation as a treatment for benign stricture, and colon stenting as a treatment for malignant obstruction. In the diagnosis of functional bowel disorder, colonoscopy is used to investigate other organic causes of the symptom.

Melanosis coli: a contrast effect or an oncogenic effect? A large-scale retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Melanosis coli is characterized by brown mucosa with pigmentation. Studies have showed an increased adenoma detection rate in melanosis patients, whether it is caused by a contrast effect or an oncogenic effect is still controversial. The detection of serrated polys in melanosis patients remains unknown.

AIMS

The study aimed to clarify the correlation of adenoma detection rate with melanosis coli and discuss outcomes in less-experienced endoscopists. Serrated polyp detection rate was also been investigated.

METHODS

A total of 2150 patients and 39,630 controls were enrolled. A propensity score matching method was used to balance covariates between the two groups. The detection of polyps, adenomas, serrated polyps, and their features was analyzed.

RESULTS

The polyp detection rate (44.65% vs 41.01%, P = 0.005) and adenoma detection rate (30.34% vs 23.92%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher, and the serrated polyp detection rate (0.93% vs 1.58%, P = 0.033) was significantly lower in melanosis coli. The percentage of low-risk adenomas (44.60% vs 39.16%, P < 0.001) and polyps with 6 to 10 mm in size (20.16% vs 16.21%, P < 0.001) were higher in melanosis coli. The detection of large serrated polyps was lower (0.11% vs 0.41%, P = 0.026) in melanosis coli.

CONCLUSION

Melanosis coli correlates with an increased adenoma detection rate. The detection of large serrated polyps was lower in melanosis patients. Melanosis coli may not be considered a precancerous lesion.

Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC) are managed according to guidelines that are not age-specific. A multidisciplinary international group (DIRECt), composed of 69 experts, was convened to develop the first evidence-based consensus recommendations for eoCRC.

METHODS

After reviewing the published literature, a Delphi methodology was used to draft and respond to clinically relevant questions. Each statement underwent 3 rounds of voting and reached a consensus level of agreement of ≥80%.

RESULTS

The DIRECt group produced 31 statements in 7 areas of interest: diagnosis, risk factors, genetics, pathology-oncology, endoscopy, therapy, and supportive care. There was strong consensus that all individuals younger than 50 should undergo CRC risk stratification and prompt symptom assessment. All newly diagnosed eoCRC patients should receive germline genetic testing, ideally before surgery. On the basis of current evidence, endoscopic, surgical, and oncologic treatment of eoCRC should not differ from later-onset CRC, except for individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. The evidence on chemotherapy is not sufficient to recommend changes to established therapeutic protocols. Fertility preservation and sexual health are important to address in eoCRC survivors. The DIRECt group highlighted areas with knowledge gaps that should be prioritized in future research efforts, including age at first screening for the general population, use of fecal immunochemical tests, chemotherapy, endoscopic therapy, and post-treatment surveillance for eoCRC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The DIRECt group produced the first consensus recommendations on eoCRC. All statements should be considered together with the accompanying comments and literature reviews. We highlighted areas where research should be prioritized. These guidelines represent a useful tool for clinicians caring for patients with eoCRC.

Complementary Effect of the Proportion of Overspeed Frames of Withdrawal and Withdrawal Time on Reflecting Colonoscopy Quality: A Retrospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Constructing quality indicators that reflect the defect of colonoscopy operation for quality audit and feedback is very important. Previously, we have established a real-time withdrawal speed monitoring system to control withdrawal speed below the safe speed. We aimed to explore the relationship between the proportion of overspeed frames (POF) of withdrawal and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and to conjointly analyze the influence of POF and withdrawal time on ADR to evaluate the feasibility of POF combined with withdrawal time as a quality control indicator.

METHODS

The POF was defined as the proportion of frames with instantaneous speed ≥44 in the whole colonoscopy video. First, we developed a system for the POF of withdrawal based on a perceptual hashing algorithm. Next, we retrospectively collected 1,804 colonoscopy videos to explore the relationship between POF and ADR. According to withdrawal time and POF cutoff, we conducted a complementary analysis on the effects of POF and withdrawal time on ADR.

RESULTS

There was an inverse correlation between the POF and ADR (Pearson correlation coefficient -0.836). When withdrawal time was >6 minutes, the ADR of the POF ≤10% was significantly higher than that of POF >10% (25.30% vs 16.50%; odds ratio 0.463, 95% confidence interval 0.296-0.724, P < 0.01). When the POF was ≤10%, the ADR of withdrawal time >6 minutes was higher than that of withdrawal time ≤6 minutes (25.30% vs 21.14%; odds ratio 0.877, 95% confidence interval 0.667-1.153, P = 0.35).

DISCUSSION

The POF was strongly correlated with ADR. The combined assessment of the POF and withdrawal time has profound significance for colonoscopy quality control.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Programs : An Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) represent the standard of care for population-based interventions. Their benefit depends on the identification of neoplasia at colonoscopy after FIT positivity. Colonoscopy quality measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR) may affect screening program effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) risk in a FIT-based screening program.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening program between 2003 and 2021 in northeastern Italy.

PATIENTS

All patients with a positive FIT result who had a colonoscopy were included.

MEASUREMENTS

The regional cancer registry supplied information on any PCCRC diagnosed between 6 months and 10 years after colonoscopy. Endoscopists' ADR was categorized into 5 groups (20% to 39.9%, 40% to 44.9%, 45% to 49.9%, 50% to 54.9%, and 55% to 70%). To examine the association of ADR with PCCRC incidence risk, Cox regression models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 110 109 initial colonoscopies, 49 626 colonoscopies done by 113 endoscopists between 2012 and 2017 were included. After 328 778 person-years follow-up, 277 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed. Mean ADR was 48.3% (range, 23% and 70%). Incidence rates of PCCRC from lowest to highest ADR group were 13.13, 10.61, 7.60, 6.01, and 5.78 per 10 000 person-years. There was a significant inverse association between ADR and PCCRC incidence risk, with a 2.35-fold risk increase (95% CI, 1.63 to 3.38) in the lowest group compared with the highest. The adjusted HR for PCCRC associated with 1% increase in ADR was 0.96 (CI, 0.95 to 0.98).

LIMITATION

Adenoma detection rate is partly determined by FIT positivity cutoff; exact values may vary in different settings.

CONCLUSION

In a FIT-based screening program, ADR is inversely associated with PCCRC incidence risk, mandating appropriate colonoscopy quality monitoring in this setting. Increasing endoscopists' ADR may significantly reduce PCCRC risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

Comparison of Colonoscopy, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Risk-Adapted Approach in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (TARGET-C)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The screening yield and related cost of a risk-adapted screening approach compared with established screening strategies in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are not clear.

METHODS

We randomly allocated 19,373 participants into 1 of the 3 screening arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: (1) one-time colonoscopy (n = 3883); (2) annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (n = 7793); (3) annual risk-adapted screening (n = 7697), in which, based on the risk-stratification score, high-risk participants were referred for colonoscopy and low-risk ones were referred for FIT. Three consecutive screening rounds were conducted for both the FIT and the risk-adapted screening arms. Follow-up to trace the health outcome for all the participants was conducted over the 3-year study period. The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced precancerous lesions) was the main outcome. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (number: ChiCTR1800015506).

RESULTS

In the colonoscopy, FIT, and risk-adapted screening arms over 3 screening rounds, the participation rates were 42.4%, 99.3%, and 89.2%, respectively; the detection rates for advanced neoplasm (intention-to-treat analysis) were 2.76%, 2.17%, and 2.35%, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR)colonoscopy vs FIT of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.63; P = .056), an ORcolonoscopy vsrisk-adapted screening of 1.17 (95% CI, 0.91-1.49; P = .218), and an ORrisk-adapted screeningvs FIT of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.88-1.35; P = .438); the numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 15.4, 7.8, and 10.2, respectively; the costs for detecting 1 advanced neoplasm from a government perspective using package payment format were 6928 Chinese Yuan (CNY) ($1004), 5821 CNY ($844), and 6694 CNY ($970), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk-adapted approach is a feasible and cost-favorable strategy for population-based CRC screening and therefore could complement the well-established one-time colonoscopy and annual repeated FIT screening strategies. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1800015506).

Targeted Computed Tomography Visualization and Healing of Inflammatory Bowel Disease by Orally Delivered Bacterial-Flagella-Inspired Polydiiododiacetylene Nanofibers

Accurate diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is essential in preventing the progression of the disease, although it still represents an insurmountable challenge. Here we report the design of bacterial-flagella-inspired polydiiododiacetylene (PIDA) nanofibers and its performance in targeted computed tomography (CT) imaging and on-demand therapeutic intervention of IBD. With a morphology mimicking bacterial flagella, PIDA nanofibers attach on the mucus layer of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract after oral administration, evenly distributing on the GI surface to portray the GI lining under CT scan within 2 h. PIDA can retain for a longer time in the damaged mucosa at the inflamed lesions than in normal GI tissues to enable the targeted CT visualization of IBD. PIDA also scavenges reactive oxygen species and ameliorates gut dysbiosis attributed to its iodine-substituted polydiacetylene structure, so that the enriched PIDA nanofibers at the targeted IBD lesions can alleviate the inflammation while maintaining the gut microbiota homeostasis, thus promoting the rebalance of GI microenvironment and the mucosal healing.

Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of the adenoma detection rate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of June 8, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the relative risk with a 95% CI, whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 23 RCTs involving 17,999 patients were included. Compared with standard colonoscopy, use of the Endocuff was associated with a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24), polyp detection rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.43), left-side lesion detection rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), and mean number of adenomas per patient (MD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.26). There were no significant differences between the and groups in detection of advanced adenomas, mean number of polyps per patient, right-side lesion detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled evidence suggests a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate using the Endocuff. On the other hand, no significant effect on the detection of advanced adenomas and mean number of polyps per patient was noted.

Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p < 0.01). We observed no long-term morbidity after severe AEs. Mortality was 0.03% (n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Outcomes Variated by the Time of the Day: A Single-Center Experience

(1) Background: To assess whether the start time influences the outcomes of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent EGD between January 2021 and December 2021 in our endoscopy center. The EGD were divided into three shifts, according to the start time. The lesion detection rate (LDR) and endoscopy biopsy rate (EBR) were used to evaluate the quality of the EGD. (3) Results: A total of 14,597 procedures were included in this study. The LDR of shift 2 was significantly lower than that of shift 1 (62.4% vs. 58.5%; p < 0.001). The EBR of shift 1 (37.4% vs. 31.5%; p < 0.001) and shift 3 (35.5% vs. 31.5%; p = 0.024) were significantly higher than that of shift 2; the EBR in shift 1 did not differ significantly from shift 3 (p = 0.280). The multivariable analysis for the EGD performed before 14:00 demonstrated a graded decrease in the LDR and EBR after adjusting the confounders (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: In a continuous working period, the lesion detection and biopsy submission of EGD are superior to those in the first three hours compared to the last three hours; the LDR and EBR decreased as the day progressed, probably due to the endoscopists' fatigue.

Detection rates of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancers among the opportunistic colonoscopy screening population: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine and compare the detection rate of adenomas, advanced adenomas (AAs) and CRCs, and the number needed to screen (NNS) of individuals in an average-risk Chinese population of different ages and genders.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed at the Institute of Health Management, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. Colonoscopy results were analyzed for 53,152 individuals finally enrolled from January 2013 to December 2019. The detection rate of adenomas, AAs, or CRCs was computed and the characteristics between men and women were compared using chi-squared test.

RESULTS

The average age was 48.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.5 years) for men and 50.0 years (SD, 9.0 years) for women, and the gender rate was 66.27% (35,226) vs . 33.73% (17,926). The detection rates of adenomas, AAs, serrated adenomas, and CRCs were 14.58% (7750), 3.09% (1641), 1.23% (653), and 0.59% (313), respectively. Men were statistically significantly associated with higher detection rates than women in adenomas (17.20% [6058/35,226], 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.74-17.53% vs . 9.44% [1692/17,926], 95% CI 8.94-9.79%, P  < 0.001), AAs (3.72% [1309], 95% CI 3.47-3.87% vs . 1.85% [332], 95% CI 1.61-2.00%, P  < 0.001), and serrated adenomas (1.56% [548], 95% CI 1.43-1.69% vs . 0.59% [105], 95% CI 0.47-0.70%, P  < 0.001). The detection rate of AAs in individuals aged 45 to 49 years was 3.17% (270/8510, 95% CI 2.80-3.55%) in men and 1.69% (69/4091, 95% CI 1.12-1.86%) in women, and their NNS was 31.55 (95% CI 28.17-35.71) in men and 67.11 (95% CI 53.76-89.29) in women. The NNS for AAs in men aged 45 to 49 years was close to that in women aged 65 to 69 years (29.07 [95% CI 21.05-46.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

The detection rates of adenomas, AAs, and serrated adenomas are high in the asymptomatic population undergoing a physical examination and are associated with gender and age. Our findings will provide important references for effective population-based CRC screening strategies in the future.

One-Day versus Three-Day Low-Residue Diet and Bowel Preparation Quality before Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

One-day low-residue diet (LRD) is recommended before colonoscopy, but only three single-center trials compared the 1-day versus 3-day LRD. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the impact of a 3-day versus 1-day LRD on its ability to adequately and successfully prepare the bowel of outpatients that require a colonoscopy. The outpatients' tolerance and adherence to the LRD were also considered.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients were randomized to 1-day versus 3-day LRD at three open-access endoscopy units. The primary endpoint consisted of the proportion of patients with a satisfactory degree of bowel cleanliness (Score 2-3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] in each segment). Secondary endpoints were patients' tolerance and adherence to the prescribed diet evaluated by a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

289 patients were included in the study (1-day LRD arm = 143, 3-day LRD arm = 146). BBPS ≥2 was not significantly different in the two dietary regimens in any of the three colonic segments (71% vs. 72%, p = 0.9). The percentage of patients with incomplete preparation was similar in the two arms (9% vs. 9%; p = 1.0). No significant differences were found among colonoscopy findings in terms of abnormalities (81% vs. 84%, p = 0.8). Both groups scored similarly in overall tolerance to LRD (48% vs. 49%, p = 1.0) and also in whether they would have adopted a different dietary regimen (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Our multicenter randomized study confirmed that optimal bowel cleansing is reached through a 1-day LRD.

Comparison of adenoma detection rate between high-definition colonoscopes with different fields of view: 170 degrees versus 140 degrees

In newer generation colonoscopes, the field of view (FOV) varies approximately between 170° and 140°, depending on the type of colonoscopy. To the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated whether the visual field difference of the colonoscope affects quality indicators, such as the adenoma detection rate (ADR), without using additional devices to expand the FOV in colonoscopes with the same resolution. This study aimed to investigate the difference in quality indicators, such as ADR, between 170° and 140° FOV in colonoscopes with the same high-definition resolution. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at the Dong-A University Hospital in Busan, South Korea, between March 2021 and February 2022. We calculated the overall ADR ratios for patients who underwent colonoscopy with 140° and 170° FOV. Polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated PDR, and advanced neoplasia detection rate were calculated for each group. Factors associated with adenoma detection were identified using a logistical regression analysis. A total of 1711 patients were included in the study (838 patients in the 170° group and 873 patients in the 140° group). ADR (43.79 vs 41.92%, P = .434) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The generational differences were not statistically significant either for PDR (56.44 vs 53.49%, P = .220), sessile serrated PDR (1.19 vs 0.92%, P = .575), or advanced neoplasia detection rate (5.00 vs 4.58%, P = .735). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, age, male sex, and long withdrawal time were the most significant factors affecting adenoma detection. This study revealed that there were no differences in ADR while employing high definition colonoscopes with a 170° FOV and a 140° FOV.

Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR.

METHODS

We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures.

RESULTS

Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 revised edition

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 3 to 5 (or more) adenomas; tubulovillous or villous adenoma; adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; traditional serrated adenoma; sessile serrated lesion containing any grade of dysplasia; serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 3 to 5 (or more) sessile serrated lesions. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

Prepackaged formula low-residue diet vs. self-prepared low-residue diet before colonoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and aims

Compared with self-prepared LRD, a prepackaged low-residue diet (LRD) can improve patient compliance, but whether it can further improve the quality of bowel preparation is uncertain. The study aimed to compare the application of the prepackaged formula LRD with self-prepared LRD in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 15 centers. The eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the formula LRD group and the self-prepared LRD group. On the day before the colonoscopy, subjects in the self-prepared LRD group were instructed to consume a restricted LRD prepared by themselves, while subjects in the formula LRD group were given six bags of prepackaged formula LRD and instructed to consume them according to their individual need. The primary outcome was an adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes mainly included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, dietary restriction compliance rate, tolerance, satisfaction, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT03943758.

Results

A total of 550 subjects were recruited. Compared with the self-prepared LRD group, the formula LRD group showed a higher adequate bowel preparation rate (94.5 vs. 80.4%; P < 0.01), BBPS scores (7.87 ± 1.13 vs. 6.75 ± 1.47; P < 0.01), dietary compliance rate (92.4 vs. 78.9%; P < 0.01), tolerance (P < 0.01 in degree of hunger, intensity of physical strength, and negative influence on daily activities), satisfaction (8.56 ± 1.61 vs. 7.20 ± 2.02; P < 0.01), and ADR (25.6 vs. 16.0%; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions.

Conclusion

Compared with self-prepared LRD, the formula LRD showed similar safety and higher bowel preparation quality, compliance, and tolerance in bowel preparation. More formula LRDs could be designed according to different dietary habits and ethnic populations, and further researches are warranted to confirm their effect.

Clinical trial registration

https://register.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03943758.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane performed on 12 December 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.