UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy

Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is CRC diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found. A consensus article from the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) proposed an approach for investigating and categorizing PCCRCs detected within 4 years of a colonoscopy. We aimed to identify cases of PCCRC and the factors that cause them, test the WEO system of categorization, quantify the proportion of avoidable PCCRCs, and propose a target rate for PCCRCs detected within 3 years of a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 107 PCCRCs identified at a single medical center in England from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017 using coding and endoscopy data. For each case, we reviewed clinical, pathology, radiology, and endoscopy findings. Using the WEO recommendations, we performed a root-cause analysis of each case, categorizing lesions as follows: possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; detected lesion, not resected; or likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. We determined whether PCCRCs could be attributed to the colonoscopist for technical or decision-making reasons, and whether the PCCRC was avoidable or unavoidable, based on the WEO categorization and size of tumor. The endoscopy reporting system provided performance data for individual endoscopists.

RESULTS

Of the PCCRCs identified, 43% were in high-risk patients (those with inflammatory bowel disease, previous CRC, previous multiple large polyps, or hereditary cancer syndromes) and 66% were located distal to the hepatic flexure. There was no correlation between postcolonoscopy colorectal tumor size and time to diagnosis after index colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was poor in 19% of index colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies had adequate photodocumentation of completion. Development of 73% of PCCRCs was determined to be affected by technical endoscopic factors, 17% of PCCRCs by administrative factors (follow-up procedures delayed/not booked by administrative staff), and 27% of PCCRCs by decision-making factors. Twenty-seven percent of PCCRCs were categorized as possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; 58% as possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; 8% as detected lesion, not resected; and 7% as incomplete resection of previously observed lesion; 89% were deemed to be avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of PCCRCs, using the WEO system of categorization, we found 43% to occur in high-risk patients; this might be reduced with more vigilant surveillance. Measures are needed to reduce technical, decision-making, and administrative factors. We found that 89% of PCCRCs may be avoidable. If half of avoidable PCCRCs could be prevented, the target rate of 2% for the PCCRC-3y (cancer diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy) benchmark would be achievable.

Diagnostic ileocolonoscopy: getting the basics right

Proficient colonoscopy technique that optimises patient comfort while simultaneously enhancing the timely detection of pathology and subsequent therapy is an aspirational and achievable goal for every endoscopist. This article aims to provide strategies to improve colonoscopy quality for both endoscopists and patients.

Colon capsule endoscopy

There are multiple indications for luminal imaging of the colon. From assessment of known disease, to diagnosing new pathology; intra-luminal visualisation is the mainstay of gastrointestinal diagnosis. Colonoscopy and radiological imaging are currently the most frequently deployed diagnostic methods. However, both have an associated risk profile, have significant resource pressures and are not universally tolerated. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers an adjunct to these diagnostic options. In this narrative review the utility of CCE is described. Its current uses, potential benefits and future developments are also discussed.

Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG)

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate at endoscopy in a non-screening population

It is understood that colorectal adenomas progress to colonic adenocarcinoma. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) at endoscopy has been used as a key performance indicator at endoscopy and is inversely associated with diagnosis of interval colorectal cancer. As most endoscopy reporting systems do not routinely incorporate histological assessment, ADR reporting is a cumbersome task. Polyp Detection Rate (PDR) has therefore been adopted as a surrogate marker for ADR. A prospectively maintained database of colonoscopies performed between July 2015 and July 2017 was analysed. This was cross referenced with a histological database. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 24. Inferential procedures employed included the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and Binomial logistic regression. Of 2964 procedures performed by 8 endoscopists, overall PDR was 27% and ADR was 19%. The PDR, ADR, adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient (APDRQ) and estimated ADR (PDR x APDRQ group average = 0.72) was calculated for each individual. There was a strong positive linear correlation between PDR and ADR,r(8) = 0.734, p = 0.038 and between PDR and estimated ADR, r(8) = 0.998, p < 0.001. Adenoma detection rate strongly correlated with estimated ADR, r(8) = 0.720, p = 0.044. With the exclusion of a moderate outlier, these correlations increased in both strength and significance. There was a stronger correlation between PDR and ADR,r(7) = 0.921, p = 0.003 and between ADR and estimated ADR, r(7) = 0.928, p = 0.003.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Impact of a real-time automatic quality control system on colorectal polyp and adenoma detection: a prospective randomized controlled study (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Quality control can decrease variations in the performance of colonoscopists and improve the effectiveness of colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancers. Unfortunately, routine quality control is difficult to carry out because a practical method is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop an automatic quality control system (AQCS) and assess whether it could improve polyp and adenoma detection in clinical practice.

METHODS

First, we developed AQCS based on deep convolutional neural network models for timing of the withdrawal phase, supervising withdrawal stability, evaluating bowel preparation, and detecting colorectal polyps. Next, consecutive patients were prospectively randomized to undergo routine colonoscopies with or without the assistance of AQCS. The primary outcome of the study was the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the AQCS and control groups.

RESULTS

A total of 659 patients were enrolled and randomized. A total of 308 and 315 patients were analyzed in the AQCS and control groups, respectively. AQCS significantly increased the ADR (0.289 vs 0.165, P < .001) and the mean number of adenomas per procedure (0.367 vs 0.178, P < .001) compared with the control group. A significant increase was also observed in the polyp detection rate (0.383 vs 0.254, P = .001) and the mean number of polyps detected per procedure (0.575 vs 0.305, P < .001). In addition, the withdrawal time (7.03 minutes vs 5.68 minutes, P < .001) and adequate bowel preparation rate (87.34% vs 80.63%, P = .023) were superior for the AQCS group.

CONCLUSIONS

AQCS could effectively improve the performance of colonoscopists during the withdrawal phase and significantly increase polyp and adenoma detection. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03622281.).

Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after screen-detected adenoma: Experiences from a Danish gFOBT-positive screening cohort

Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is implemented in several countries. Approximately half of all FOBT-positive persons have screen-detected adenomas. Despite removal of these, patients with large/multiple adenomas have increased risk of later developing new advanced adenomas and CRC. International guidelines exist for colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. These divide patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups. We followed 711 FOBT-positive patients with screening adenoma identified during population-based CRC screening in two Danish counties in 2005-2006. As reference population, we included 1,240,348 persons in the same age group from the rest of Denmark not included in the screening. We estimated the long-term CRC risk stratified by adenoma findings during screening and compared to the reference group. After 12 years follow-up, the CRC incidence among all adenoma patients was 322 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 212-489) ranging from 251 (95% CI: 94-671) to 542 (95% CI: 300-978) cases per 100,000 person-years in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively. In the reference population, the CRC incidence was 244 (95% CI: 242-247) per 100,000. Patients with screen-detected high-risk adenomas after a positive FOBT had an almost doubled risk of CRC compared to the reference population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.95, 95% CI: 1.08-3.51), and the incidence in those with no follow-up visits was over 3.6 (aHR 3.64, 95% CI: 1.82-7.29) times the incidence in the reference population. The increased CRC risk could be controlled if high-risk patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy (aHR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.28-2.69).

Colonoscopy withdrawal time and polyp/adenoma detection rate: a single-site retrospective study in regional Queensland

BACKGROUNDS

Bowel cancer is the second most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed in Australia among both genders. Colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 6 min has been accepted as the standard to achieve the target polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). A retrospective review was conducted in Bundaberg Hospital to evaluate the relationship between colonoscopy withdrawal time against polyp, adenoma and cancer detection rates.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out in Bundaberg Hospital on patients who had colonoscopies performed between 1 October 2016 and 30 September 2017 by the general surgical team. Data collection was conducted by reviewing patient charts, general practitioner referral letters and endoscopy reports. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-squared test using Prism 8.2.1.

RESULTS

A total of 1579 colonoscopies were analysed. The median age of patients undergoing a colonoscopy was 64 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.55-61.93). Median total duration of colonoscopy was 19 min (95% CI 20.9-22.0), with median withdrawal time of 9 min (95% CI 10.06-10.95). PDR, ADR and sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) detection rates were 43.3%, 33.1% and 5.4%, respectively. Cancer detection rate was 2.8%. Longer withdrawal times were associated with higher PDR, ADR and SSA detection rates (P < 0.0001) and higher mean number of polyp/adenoma/SSA detected.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopies with withdrawal times of less than 6 min did not achieve the target detection rates. It is clear that achieving the advocated withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy improves detection rates.

Patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™

BACKGROUND

Measuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five 'procedural stages' were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety).

CONCLUSION

We identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

Adverse events associated with bidirectional endoscopy with midazolam and pethidine

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy has been reported to reduce recovery time, and procedure-related cost. The safety of bidirectional endoscopy vs colonoscopy only, while using midazolam and pethidine, has never been evaluated. We reviewed 1,202 consecutive patients who underwent bidirectional endoscopy or colonoscopy only with administration of midazolam and pethidine in Toyoshima Ensdoscopy Clinic. We compared the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with method of endoscopy (colonoscopy only vs bidirectional endoscopy). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the role of age, sex, use of sedative, polypectomy, and bidirectional endoscopy in adverse events. In the bidirectional endoscopy group, the doses of pethidine and midazolam, and the incidence rates of hypoxia and posto-endoscopic nausea were significantly higher. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio = 1.061, p<0.001), use of pethidine (odds ratio = 4.311, p = 0.003), and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 3.658, p<0.001) were independently associated with hypoxia. On multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio = 10.25, p = 0.027) and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 6.051, p = 0.022) were independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. In conclusion, bidirectional endoscopy could increase hypoxia in elderly patients using pethidine and post-endoscopic nausea in female patients.

Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in England by using recent World Endoscopy Organisation guidelines, compare incidence among colonoscopy providers, and explore associated factors that could benefit from quality improvement initiatives.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study.

SETTING

National Health Service in England between 2005 and 2013.

POPULATION

All people undergoing colonoscopy and subsequently diagnosed as having colorectal cancer up to three years after their investigation (PCCRC-3yr).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

National trends in incidence of PCCRC (within 6-36 months of colonoscopy), univariable and multivariable analyses to explore factors associated with occurrence, and funnel plots to measure variation among providers.

RESULTS

The overall unadjusted PCCRC-3yr rate was 7.4% (9317/126 152), which decreased from 9.0% in 2005 to 6.5% in 2013 (P<0.01). Rates were lower for colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme (593/16 640, 3.6%), while they were higher for those conducted by non-NHS providers (187/2009, 9.3%). Rates were higher in women, in older age groups, and in people with inflammatory bowel disease or diverticular disease, in those with higher comorbidity scores, and in people with previous cancers. Substantial variation in rates among colonoscopy providers remained after adjustment for case mix.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variation exists in PCCRC-3yr rates across NHS colonoscopy providers in England. The lowest incidence was seen in colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to address this variation in rates and prevent colorectal cancer by enabling earlier diagnosis, removing premalignant polyps, and therefore improving outcomes.

Accredited Endoscopy Unit Program of Korea: Overview and Qualification

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy introduced the Accredited Endoscopy Unit Program to enhance endoscopy unit quality through systematic quality management in 2012. It was gradually expanded from training hospitals to institutions with 100+ beds, and the criteria for certification were applied according to the actual conditions of each institution. On the basis of the continuous communication with the institutions and feedback, the Accredited Endoscopy Unit Program certification criteria were revised in 2019 and introduced as follows: (1) the qualification criteria for endoscopy doctors and nurses; (2) facilities and equipment; (3) endoscopic examination process; (4) performance; (5) disinfection and infection control; and (6) endoscopic sedation. The assessment items consist of essential and recommended items. All essential items must be met for accreditation to be awarded. The assessment criteria for each evaluation area were revised as follows: (1) upgrading assessment criteria; (2) qualification of endoscopists and reinforcement of quality control education; (3) detailed standards for safety, disinfection, endoscopic sedation, and management instructions; and (4) presentation of new performance measurement of endoscopy and colonoscopy.

Updates on the Facilities, Procedures, and Performance of the Accredited Endoscopy Unit

Endoscopic quality indicators can be classified into three categories, namely facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedures, and outcome measures. In 2019, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy updated the accreditation of qualified endoscopy unit assessment items for these quality indicators to establish competence and define areas of continuous quality improvement.

Here, we presented the updated program guidelines on the facilities, procedures, and performance of the accredited endoscopy unit. Many of these items have not yet been validated. However, the updated program will help in establishing competence and defining areas of continuous quality improvement in Korean endoscopic practice.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study

OBJECTIVE

The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services.

DESIGN

Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance.

RESULTS

74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Medicine and the McNamara fallacy

The 'McNamara fallacy' (also known as quantitative fallacy) is named after the US Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. The fallacy consists of over-reliance on metrics, and may be summarised as: 'if it cannot be measured, it is not important'. This paper describes the McNamara fallacy as it applies to medicine and healthcare, taking as examples hospital mortality data, NHS targets and quality assurance.

Endoscopist biopsy rate as a quality indicator for outpatient gastroscopy: a multicenter cohort study with validation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnosis of gastric premalignant conditions (GPCs) relies on endoscopy with mucosal sampling. We hypothesized that the endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR) might constitute a quality indicator for EGD, and we have analyzed its association with GPC detection and the rate of missed gastric cancers (GCs).

METHODS

We analyzed EGD databases from 2 high-volume outpatient units. EBR values, defined as the proportion of EGDs with ≥1 biopsy to all examinations were calculated for each endoscopist in Unit A (derivation cohort) and divided by the quartile values into 4 groups. Detection of GPC was calculated for each group and compared using multivariate clustered logistic regression models. Unit B database was used for validation. All patients were followed in the Cancer Registry for missed GCs diagnosed between 1 month and 3 years after EGDs with negative results.

RESULTS

Sixteen endoscopists in Unit A performed 17,490 EGDs of which 15,340 (87.7%) were analyzed. EBR quartile values were 22.4% to 36.7% (low EBR), 36.8% to 43.7% (moderate), 43.8% to 51.6% (high), and 51.7% and 65.8% (very-high); median value 43.8%. The odds ratios for the moderate, high, and very-high EBR groups of detecting GPC were 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-1.9), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.7-2.4), and 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-2.9), respectively, compared with the low EBR group (P < .001). This association was confirmed with the same thresholds in the validation cohort. Endoscopists with higher EBR (≥43.8%) had a lower risk of missed cancer compared with those in the lower EBR group (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-1.00; P = .049).

CONCLUSIONS

The EBR parameter is highly variable among endoscopists and is associated with efficacy in GPC detection and the rate of missed GCs.

Current Practices in Ileal Pouch Surveillance for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Multinational, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are no universally accepted guidelines regarding surveillance of ulcerative colitis [UC] patients after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. There also exists a lack of validated quality assurance standards for performing pouchoscopy. To better understand IPAA surveillance practices in the face of this clinical equipoise, we carried out a retrospective cohort study at five inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] referral centres.

METHODS

Records of patients who underwent IPAA for UC or IBD unclassified [IBDU] were reviewed, and patients with <1-year follow-up after restoration of intestinal continuity were excluded. Criteria for determining the risk of pouch dysplasia formation were collected as well as the use of pouchoscopy, biopsies, and completeness of reports.

RESULTS

We included 272 patients. Median duration of pouch follow-up was 10.5 [3.3-23.6] years; 95/272 [35%] had never undergone pouchoscopy for any indication; 191/272 [70%] had never undergone pouchoscopy with surveillance as the specific indication; and 3/26 [12%] high-risk patients had never undergone pouchoscopy. Two cases of adenocarcinoma were identified, occurring in the rectal cuff of low-risk patients. Patients under the care of surgeons appeared more likely to undergo surveillance, but rates of incomplete reporting were higher among surgeons [78%] than gastroenterologists [54%, p = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

We observed wide variation in surveillance of UC/IBDU-IPAA patients. In addition, the rate of neoplasia formation among 'low-risk' patients was higher than may have been expected. We therefore concur with previous recommendations that pouchoscopy be performed at 1 year postoperatively, to refine risk-stratification based on clinical factors alone. Reports should document findings in all regions of the pouch and biopsies should be taken.

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could have an impact on perceived trainee outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated for 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions.

RESULTS

Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies) and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) (P < .001) and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE, 94%; ASGE, 96%; P < .001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% for the crude ASGE definition to 18.6% for the unassisted ESGE definition (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIR calculation methods vary among guidelines and research studies; this has an impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.

Terminal ileum ileoscopy and histology in patients undergoing high-definition colonoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy for chronic nonbloody diarrhea: A prospective, multicenter study

Background and aims

Ileo-colonoscopy is the procedure of choice for chronic nonbloody diarrhea (CNBD) of unknown origin. Histological evaluation at different colonic sites is mandatory to assess the presence of microscopic colitis. However, the value of routine ileal biopsy on normal-appearing mucosa as assessed by means of standard-resolution white-light ileoscopy is controversial given its reported low diagnostic yield. Hence, we have assessed for the first time the accuracy of retrograde ileoscopy using high-definition and dyeless chromoendoscopy (HD + DLC), thereby calculating the impact and cost of routine ileal biopsy in CNBD.

Methods

Patients with CNBD of unknown origin were prospectively enrolled for ileo-colonoscopy with HD + DLC at five referral centers. Multiple biopsies were systematically performed on each colorectal segment and in the terminal ileum for histopathological analysis.

Results

Between 2014 and 2017, 546 consecutive patients were recruited. Retrograde ileoscopy success rate was 97.6%. A total of 492 patients (mean age: 53 ± 18 years) fulfilled all the inclusion criteria: Following endoscopic and histopathological work-up, 7% had lymphoid nodular hyperplasia and 3% had isolated ileitis. Compared to the histopathology as the gold standard, retrograde ileoscopy with HD + DLC showed 93% sensitivity, 98% specificity and 99.8% negative predictive value. In patients with normal ileo-colonoscopy, ileum histology had no diagnostic gain and resulted in a cost of US $26.5 per patient.

Conclusions

Retrograde ileoscopy with HD  +  DLC predicts the presence of ileitis in CNBD with excellent performance. The histopathological evaluation of the terminal ileum is the gold standard for the diagnostic assessment of visible lesions but has no added diagnostic value in CNBD patients with negative ileo-colonoscopy inspection using modern endoscopic imaging techniques.

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

Objectives

To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan.

Methods

Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR.

Results

Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected.

Conclusions

Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly.

Key Points

• CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break).

• Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.

A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries

Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.

Development of a national automated endoscopy database: The United Kingdom National Endoscopy Database (NED)

Background

The National Endoscopy Database (NED) project commenced in 2013 under the auspices of the Joint Advisory Group. The aim is to upload endoscopy procedure data from all units across the United Kingdom to a centralised database. The database can be used to facilitate quality assurance, research and training in endoscopy.

Objective

This article describes the development and implementation process of NED from its inception to date.

Methods

NED utilises automated data uploading of a minimum dataset from local endoscopy reporting systems to a central national database via the internet. Currently all data are anonymised. Key performance indicators are presented to endoscopists and organisations on a web-based platform for quality assurance purposes.

Results

As of October 2018, 295 endoscopy services out of a total of 529 known services in the UK (56%) are actively uploading to NED. Data from more than 400,000 endoscopic procedures have been uploaded.

Conclusion

UK-wide data collection from endoscopy units to a central database is feasible using an automated upload system. This has the potential to facilitate endoscopy quality assurance and research.

Certification of UK gastrointestinal endoscopists and variations between trainee specialties: results from the JETS e-portfolio

Introduction  In the UK, endoscopy certification is administered by the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Since 2011, certification for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has been awarded via a national (JETS) e-portfolio to the main training specialties of: gastroenterology, gastrointestinal surgeons (GS) and non-medical endoscopists (NME). Trends in endoscopy certification and differences between trainee specialties were analyzed. Methods  This prospective UK-wide observational study identified trainees awarded gastroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy (provisional and full) certification between June 2011 - 2017. Trends in certification, procedures and time-to-certification, and key performance indicators (KPIs) in the 3-month pre- and post-certification period were compared between the three main training specialties. Results  Three thousand one hundred fifty-seven endoscopy-related certifications were awarded to 1928 trainees from gastroenterology (52.3 %), GS (28.4 %) and NME (16.5  %) specialties. During the study period, certification numbers increased for all modalities and specialties, particularly NME trainees. For gastroscopy and colonoscopy, procedures-to-certification were lowest for GS ( P  < 0.001), whereas time-to-certification was consistently shortest in NMEs ( P  < 0.001). A post-certification reduction in mean cecal intubation rate (95.2 % to 93.8 %, P  < 0.001) was observed in colonoscopy, and D2 intubation (97.6 % to 96.2 %, P  < 0.001) and J-maneuver (97.3 % to 95.8 %, P  < 0.001) in gastroscopy. Overall, average pre- and post-certification KPIs still exceeded national minimum standards. There was an increase in PDR for NMEs after provisional colonoscopy certification but a decrease in PDR for GS trainees after sigmoidoscopy and full colonoscopy certification. Conclusion  Despite variations among trainee specialties, average pre- and post-certification KPIs for certified trainees met national standards, suggesting that JAG certification is a transparent benchmark which adequately safeguards competency in endoscopy training.

Polyp detection rate: does length matter?

INTRODUCTION

Polyp detection rate is a surrogate marker for adenoma detection rate and therefore a surrogate marker of quality colonoscopy. To our knowledge, this is the first study that compares distance from the monitor to the endoscopist on polyp detection rate.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study comparing polyp detection rate across two different endoscopy room set-ups. All colonoscopies performed between December 2013 and November 2014 were retrieved. The difference in the room set-up was the distance from the endoscopist to the endoscopy monitor. Room A had a distance of 219 cm and Room B had 147 cm. We used two identical rooms, C and D, as a control arm with a distance of 190 cm between the endoscopist and the monitor.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in polyp detection rates between Room A and Room B in the bowel cancer screening lists. For these lists, the room with the closest distance from the endoscopist to the monitor (147 cm) had a statistically significant higher polyp detection rate than the room that had a further monitor to endoscopist distance of 219 cm (p<0.0006) and a trend towards a higher polyp detection rate compared with the room where the distance between the monitor and the endoscopist was 190 cm (p=0.08). This effect was not noticed across the service lists.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has suggested that the distance from the endoscopist to the monitor can affect polyp detection rate. It appears that for bowel cancer screening lists, the further the endoscopist from the monitor the lower their polyp detection rate.

My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy

The goal of diagnostic colonoscopy is to achieve procedural completion while maximising effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety. In recent years, international interest in water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) has been steadily gathering pace. A plethora of high-quality randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses now offer incontrovertible evidence into the benefits of WAC, both for the endoscopist and the patient. Despite this, uptake of WAC within the UK has been limited, with the lack of educational resources representing a significant barrier. This practical step-by-step guide is aimed at both existing practitioners and trainees, with a view to promoting familiarity with WAC and potentially for incorporation into daily practice which may ultimately have a positive effect on quality of colonoscopy and patient experience.

British society of gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (EQIP): overview and progress

High quality gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy improves patient care. Raising standards in endoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy, management of pathology and ultimately improves outcomes. Historical identification of significant variation in colonoscopy quality led to the development of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on GI Endoscopy, the Global Rating Scale (GRS), JAG Endoscopy Training System (JETS) training and certification. These measures led to major improvements in UK endoscopy but significant variation in practice still exists. To improve quality further the British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement (EQIP) has been established with the aim of raising quality and reducing variation in the quality of UK endoscopy. A multifaceted approach to quality improvement (QI) will be undertaken and is described in this manuscript. Upper GI EQIP will support adoption of standards alongside regional upskilling courses. Lower GI EQIP will focus on supporting endoscopists to achieve current standards alongside approaches to reducing postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography EQIP will adopt a regional approach of using local data to support network-based QI. Newer areas of endoscopy practice such as small bowel endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound will focus on identifying key performance indicators as well as standardising training and accreditation pathways. EQIP will also support QI in management of GI bleeding as well as standardising the approach to new techniques and technologies. Where evidence is lacking, approaches to gather new evidence and support the translation into clinical practice will be supported.

Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. Drivers such as changes to healthcare agenda, national audits, advances in research and technology and the advent of population-based cancer screening have underpinned this shift in priority. Over this period, JAG has spearheaded various quality assurance initiatives with support from national stakeholders. These have led to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance, particularly in the three major areas of: (1) endoscopy training, (2) accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale), and (3) accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as a model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This review provides a summary of JAG initiatives and assesses the impact of JAG on training and endoscopy services within the UK and beyond.

Colorectal cancer and adenoma screening using urinary volatile organic compound (VOC) detection: early results from a single-centre bowel screening population (UK BCSP)

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom (UK) bowel cancer screening programme has reduced mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), but poor uptake with stool-based tests and lack of specificity of faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has prompted investigation for a more suitable screening test. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a urinary volatile organic compounds (VOC)-based screening tool for CRC.

METHODS

The urine from FOBT-positive patients was analysed using field asymmetric ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) and gas chromatography coupled with ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS). Data were analysed using a machine learning algorithm to calculate the test accuracy for correct classification of CRC against adenomas and other gastrointestinal pathology.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients were enrolled in the study. Test accuracy was high for differentiating CRC from control: area under the curve (AUC) 0.98 (95% CI 0.93-1) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) using FAIMS and GC-IMS respectively. Correct classification of CRC from adenoma was high with AUC range 0.83-0.92 (95% CI 0.43-1.0). Classification of adenoma from control was poor with AUC range 0.54-0.61 (95% CI 0.47-0.75) using both analytical modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC was correctly distinguished from adenomas or no bowel pathology using urinary VOC markers, within the bowel screening population. This pilot study demonstrates the potential of this method for CRC detection, with higher test uptake and superior sensitivity than FOBT. In addition, this is the first application of GC-IMS in CRC detection which has shown high test accuracy and usability.

Assessment of the Quality of Outpatient Endoscopic Procedures by Using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic procedures represent an important part of daily practice, both for gastroenterologists and nurses, enabling diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. An optimal level of quality needs to be obtained for endoscopic procedures to be efficient, which is reflected directly by patient satisfaction. The Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ) has already been validated in a multicenter trial as an efficient method for measuring patient satisfaction. Aim The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction by applying a modified version of the GESQ in an outpatient facility, with or without deep sedation performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study included 552 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic upper and lower GI endoscopies, including endoscopic ultrasound procedures (EUS) performed under propofol sedation, from September 2015 to February 2016. Consecutive patients examined during these 6 months received the questionnaire which was handed by the endoscopy nurse two hours after procedure. The GESQ was modified to include different sections for: 1) communication skills with questions regarding the quantity and clarity of the information delivered to the patient before and after the procedures; 2) pain and discomfort related to the examination with an added question about the specific procedure the patient had undergone; 3) staff manners; 4) physician's technical skills; 5) facility organization (waiting time, comfort in the recovery room, good facilities and equipment) and 6) overall satisfaction. The questionnaire did not include personal data, while answers were analyzed in a confidential manner.

RESULTS

A total number of 552 patients agreed to answer our questionnaire, 192 (34,7%) underwent gastroscopies, 288 (52,1%) colonoscopies and 72 (13,2%) EUS examinations. Regarding the overall level of satisfaction (assessed on a five-point scale), 476 (86,2%) were very satisfied or satisfied, 69 (12,5%) dissatisfied and the remainder 7 (1,3%) were indifferently. For the communication section 16 (3%) patients were not satisfied with the explanations received before the procedure or with the answers to their questions. Pain and discomfort were mentioned by 29 (5,2%) of the patients, usually related to colonoscopies or EUS examinations. 13 (2,3%) of the patients considered the comfort or intimacy of the recovery room to be poor, and 11 (2%) patients were not satisfied with the waiting time before the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our modified questionnaire showed good overall patient satisfaction with our endoscopy unit, while also suggesting some areas in need of improvement, such as staff communication skills, better time management and reorganization of the recovery area. Our study demonstrates the importance of such questionnaires in providing feedback information meant to improve standards in endoscopy, including staff skills and organization.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Performance indicators in colonoscopy after certification for independent practice: outcomes and predictors of competence

BACKGROUND

Robust real-world performance data of newly independent colonoscopists are lacking. In the United Kingdom, provisional colonoscopy certification (PCC) marks the transition from training to newly independent practice. We aimed to assess changes in key performance indicators (KPIs) such as cecal intubation rate (CIR) in the periods pre- and post-PCC, particularly regarding rates and predictors of trainees exhibiting a drop in performance (DIP), defined as CIR <90% in the first 50 procedures post-PCC.

METHODS

A prospective United Kingdom-wide observational study of Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Electronic Training System (JETS) e-portfolio colonoscopy entries (257,800) from trainees awarded PCC between July 2011 and 2016 was undertaken. Moving average analyses were used to study KPI trends relative to PCC. Pre-PCC trainee, trainer, and training environment factors were compared between DIP and non-DIP cohorts to identify predictors of DIP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred thirty-three trainees from 180 centers were awarded PCC after a median of 265 procedures and 3.1 years. Throughout the early post-PCC period, average CIRs surpassed the national 90% standard. Despite this, not all trainees achieved this standard post-PCC, with DIP observed in 18.4%. DIP was not influenced by trainer presence and diminished after 100 additional procedures. On multivariable analysis, pre-PCC CIRs and trainer specialty were predictive of DIP. Trainees with DIP incurred higher post-PCC rates of moderate to severe discomfort despite requiring higher analgesic dosages and were more likely to require trainer assistance in failed procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current PCC requirements are appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy. It is possible to identify predictors of underperformance in trainees, which may be of value to training leads and could improve the patient experience.

Lack of association between screening interval and cancer stage in Lynch syndrome may be accounted for by over-diagnosis; a prospective Lynch syndrome database report

Background

Recent epidemiological evidence shows that colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to occur in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair (path_MMR) variants despite frequent colonoscopy surveillance in expert centres. This observation conflicts with the paradigm that removal of all visible polyps should prevent the vast majority of CRC in path_MMR carriers, provided the screening interval is sufficiently short and colonoscopic practice is optimal.

Methods

To inform the debate, we examined, in the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD), whether the time since last colonoscopy was associated with the pathological stage at which CRC was diagnosed during prospective surveillance. Path_MMR carriers were recruited for prospective surveillance by colonoscopy. Only variants scored by the InSiGHT Variant Interpretation Committee as class 4 and 5 (clinically actionable) were included. CRCs detected at the first planned colonoscopy, or within one year of this, were excluded as prevalent cancers.

Results

Stage at diagnosis and interval between last prospective surveillance colonoscopy and diagnosis were available for 209 patients with 218 CRCs, including 162 path_MLH1, 45 path_MSH2, 10 path_MSH6 and 1 path_PMS2 carriers. The numbers of cancers detected within < 1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5 and at > 3.5 years since last colonoscopy were 36, 93, 56 and 33, respectively. Among these, 16.7, 19.4, 9.9 and 15.1% were stage III–IV, respectively (p = 0.34). The cancers detected more than 2.5 years after the last colonoscopy were not more advanced than those diagnosed earlier (p = 0.14).

Conclusions

The CRC stage and interval since last colonoscopy were not correlated, which is in conflict with the accelerated adenoma-carcinoma paradigm. We have previously reported that more frequent colonoscopy is not associated with lower incidence of CRC in path_MMR carriers as was expected. In contrast, point estimates showed a higher incidence with shorter intervals between examinations, a situation that may parallel to over-diagnosis in breast cancer screening. Our findings raise the possibility that some CRCs in path_MMR carriers may spontaneously disappear: the host immune response may not only remove CRC precursor lesions in path_MMR carriers, but may remove infiltrating cancers as well. If confirmed, our suggested interpretation will have a bearing on surveillance policy for path_MMR carriers.

Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Low adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

DESIGN

Patients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.

RESULTS

1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, P<0.001). EV patients had higher detection of mean adenomas per procedure, sessile serrated polyps, left-sided, diminutive, small adenomas and cancers (cancer 4.1% vs 2.3%, P=0.02). EV removal rate was 4.1%. Median intubation was a minute quicker with EAC (P=0.001), with no difference in caecal intubation rate or withdrawal time. EAC was well tolerated but caused a minor increase in discomfort on anal intubation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with no or minimal sedation. There were no significant EV adverse events.

CONCLUSION

EV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

To cap/cuff or ring: do distal attachment devices improve the adenoma detection?

Colonoscopy reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence enabling the detection and removal of adenomas before they turn into colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy has its limitations as adenoma miss rates as high as 25% have been reported. The reasons for missed pathology are complicated and multi-factorial. The recent drive to improve adenoma detection rates has led to a plethora of new technologies. Areas covered: An increasing number of advanced endoscopes and distal attachment devices have appeared in the market. Advanced endoscopes aim to improve mucosal visualization by widening the field of view. Distal attachment devices aim to increase adenoma detection behind folds by flattening folds on withdrawal. In this review article, we discuss the three following distal attachment devices: the transparent cap, the Endocuff, and the Endoring. Expert commentary: The authors believe that the distal attachment devices will have a greater benefit for endoscopists with low baseline adenoma detection rates.

Iatrogenic Colonic Perforations: Changing the Paradigm

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of colonoscopic perforations in patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients with perforations secondary to diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy between 2009 and 2015 at the Pontevedra Hospital Complex. We analyzed age, closure method, length of hospitalization, and long-term progress.

RESULTS

Of the 34 perforations detected, 67.6% occurred in patients aged below 75 years. Most perforations occurred in the descending colon (55%). Perforations occurred in 55.9% of outpatients and 45% of inpatients. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies caused perforations in 20.6% and 79.4% of patients, respectively. Conservative treatment alone was performed in 5.9%, complete or partial endoscopic closure in 14.7%, and surgery in 79.4% of patients. Patients treated only conservatively or with concomitant endoscopic closure showed no mortality. The mortality rate was 14.8% in those treated surgically, and 55% of these patients required a subsequent ostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management with antibiotics and parenteral nutrition concomitant with complete/partial endoscopic closure effectively treats perforations, provided intraprocedural diagnosis is possible with immediate administration of antibiotics after the procedure. Nevertheless, studies with larger number of patients and statistical analysis are necessary in the near future.

Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is capable of reducing CRC-related morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is the reference standard to detect CRC, also providing the opportunity to detect and resect its precursor lesions: colorectal polyps. Therefore, colonoscopy is either used as a primary screening tool or as a subsequent procedure after a positive triage test in screening programs based on non-invasive stool testing or sigmoidoscopy. However, in both settings, colonoscopy is not fully protective for the occurrence of post-colonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Because most PCCRCs are the result of colonoscopy-related factors, a high-quality procedure is of paramount importance to assure optimal effectiveness of CRC screening programs. For this reason, at the start of the Dutch fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, quality criteria for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees, as well as for endoscopy centers, were defined. In conjunction, an accreditation and auditing system was designed and implemented. In this report, we describe the quality assurance process for endoscopists participating in the Dutch national CRC screening program, including a detailed description of the evidence-based quality criteria. We believe that our experience might serve as an example for colonoscopy quality assurance programs in other CRC screening programs.

The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death and an important cause of morbidity. The natural history of carcinogenesis, via the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, permits screening, which reduces the relative risk of mortality by up to 16%. The efficacy of a screening programme is limited by the growth of interval colorectal cancers between screening examinations. Quantifying the rate of interval cancers and delineating contributing endoscopic factors are crucial to maximise the benefit of a screening program.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Electronic databases were interrogated with a considered search strategy, and reference lists of retrieved papers were surveyed. For inclusion, studies included the rate of interval cancer (stated or calculated) and reported at least one of a predefined list of endoscopy characteristics. The primary outcome was to establish the rate of interval cancers. The secondary outcome was to determine the association between endoscopy quality measures and interval cancers.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2067 papers. Seventy-six full text papers were reviewed. Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 117,793 colon cancers, 7281 of which were interval lesions, giving an overall rate of 6.2%. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of the endoscopist performing the index operation was the most consistent endoscopy factor associated with development of interval cancers. The impact of setting, volume and bowel preparation varied between papers.

CONCLUSION

Interval cancers reduce the efficacy of colorectal screening programmes. Ensuring the quality of the endoscopy process, specifically by increasing the ADR of practitioners, is crucial to the reduction of the rate of interval cancers.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

The aim of the project this paper is part of was to propose quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. In this second issue, procedures and indicators are suggested regarding colonoscopy. First, a diagram charting the previous and subsequent steps of colonoscopy was designed. A group of experts in health care quality and/or endoscopy, under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), performed a qualitative review of the literature regarding colonoscopy-related quality indicators. Subsequently, using a paired-analysis method, the aforementioned literature was selected and analyzed. A total of 13 specific indicators were found aside of the common markers elsewhere described, ten of which are process-related (one pre-procedure, seven procedure, and two post-procedure markers) while the remaining three are outcome-related. Quality of evidence was assessed for each one of them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) classification.

Microscopic colitis: a population-based case series over a 9-year period in Northern Ireland

AIM

We report clinicopathological experience of microscopic colitis (MC) in a population-based case series in Northern Ireland over a 9-year period.

METHOD

The pathology laboratory information system within a large teaching centre serving two healthcare trusts was interrogated for cases coded between 2008 and 2016 as collagenous colitis (CC) or lymphocytic colitis (LC). Demographic, clinical and follow-up information was collected from healthcare records.

RESULTS

A total of 326 new diagnoses of MC were identified, an average annual incidence of 6.7 per 100 000 population. The average annual incidence of CC and LC was 5.0 and 1.7 per 100 000 population, respectively. For coding reasons it is likely that LC data are incomplete. Of 191 cases diagnosed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists, 141 patients had CC and 50 patients had LC. Both CC and LC predominantly involved women aged 60-79. Some 15% demonstrated endoscopic abnormalities. Endoscopic sampling protocols varied widely: 30% of individuals with CC and 32% of those with LC had the right and left colon sampled separately, with histology concordant in 95% of cases. Of the 191 cases, only one case (of LC) was refractory to treatment; the rest exhibited a clinical response. Only 35 patients had follow-up endoscopy and biopsies, and three of each diagnosis showed persistent disease on histology.

CONCLUSION

Overall, CC and LC are benign conditions with similar demographics, clinical associations, management and outcomes. Separate sampling of the right and left colon is advised at colonoscopy if this diagnosis is being considered, but left colonic sampling, which can be performed at flexible sigmoidoscopy, will diagnose the vast majority of cases.

Setting up a service for a faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT): a review of considerations, challenges and constraints

Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT) have now been advocated by the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence (NICE: DG30) to assist in the triage of patients presenting with symptoms that suggest a low risk of colorectal (bowel) cancer. The evidence is that FIT provides a good rule out test for significant bowel disease. However, a small number of cases will be missed, and robust safety-netting procedures are required to follow up some FIT-negative patients. A range of diagnostic pathways are possible, and there is no best approach at present. Introduction of FIT requires careful consideration of the logistics of supply of devices and information to requesting sites and of transport to the laboratory. A number of FIT analytical systems are available. Three are documented as appropriate for use in assessment of patients with symptoms. However, preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical challenges remain. The methods have different specimen collection devices. The methods use polyclonal antibodies and there is no primary reference material or method to which FIT methods are standardised. Third-party internal quality control is lacking, and external quality assessment schemes have many difficulties in providing appropriate materials. Reporting of results should be done using µg Hb/g faeces units and with knowledge of the limit of detection and limit of quantitation of the analytical system used. FIT can be used successfully in an agreed diagnostic pathway, along with other clinical and laboratory information: this requires a multidisciplinary approach, providing opportunities for professionals in laboratory medicine involvement.

Scottish Bowel Screening Programme colonoscopy quality - scope for improvement?

AIM

The delivery of the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) is rooted in the provision of a high quality, effective and participant-centred service. Safe and effective colonoscopy forms an integral part of the process. Additional accreditation as part of a multi-faceted programme for participating colonoscopists, as in England, does not exist in Scotland. This study aimed to describe the quality of colonoscopy in the SBoSP and compare this to the English national screening standards.

METHODS

Data were collected from the SBoSP between 2007 and 2014. End-points for analysis were caecal intubation, cancer, polyp and adenoma detection, and complications. Overall results were compared with 2012 published English national standards for screening and outcomes from 2006 to 2009.

RESULTS

During the study period 53 332 participants attended for colonoscopy. The colonoscopy completion rate was 95.6% overall. The mean cancer detection rate was 7.1%, the polyp detection rate was 45.7% and the adenoma detection rate was 35.5%. The overall complication rate was 0.47%.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy quality in the SBoSP has exceeded the standard set for screening colonoscopy in England, despite not adopting a multi-faceted programme for screening colonoscopy. However, the overall adenoma detection rate in Scotland was 9.1% lower than that in England which has implications for colonoscopy quality and may have an impact on cancer prevention rates, a key aim of the SBoSP.

Validation of same-day bowel preparation regimen using 4L polyethylene glycol: Comparison of morning and afternoon colonoscopy

A split-dose regimen is the recommended method of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, for colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, same-day preparation is recommended rather than a split-dose regimen. No study has compared the efficacy of same-day bowel-cleansing for morning colonoscopy (MC) and afternoon colonoscopy (AC). The aims of this study were to evaluate the bowel-cleansing efficacy, adverse events, and patient tolerability of same-day bowel preparation for colonoscopy using 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG).The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our healthcare center over 3 months were retrospectively reviewed. Colonoscopy was performed between 10:00 and 16:00. Study subjects were assigned to the MC or AC group according to their colonoscopy start time (MC group, before 12:00; AC group, after 12:00). Study subjects were instructed to drink 500-mL PEG every 15 minutes. In the MC group, bowel cleansing was started at 05:00 and finished at 07:00. For the AC group, 2L PEG was consumed from 07:00, and the remaining 2L PEG was started 3 hours before colonoscopy. The composite safety profile included vital signs, laboratory test results, and questionnaire findings. Laboratory testing of subjects and completion of the questionnaire were performed before colonoscopy. The questionnaire asked about adverse events and tolerability of the bowel cleansing regimen. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile were compared between the 2 groups.Two hundred and ninety-one subjects were included (MC group, 169; AC group, 122).The BBPS did not differ between the 2 groups (7.3 ± 0.8 vs. 7.3 ± 0.8, P = .68). There were no instances of electrolyte imbalance or hemodynamic instability in either group. The tolerability of the bowel-cleansing regimen did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .59).The bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and patient tolerability of MC and AC were comparable. A same-day dose of 4L PEG is a feasible bowel preparation method.

Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.

Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.

Comparison of efficacy of colonoscopy between the morning and afternoon: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, rather than morning, has been reported to be associated with lower rates of adenoma and polyp detection (ADR and PDR) and cecal intubation (CIR). This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of afternoon colonoscopy relative to morning colonoscopy.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify potential relevant studies. The primary outcome was ADR and the secondary outcomes were CIR and PDR. The outcomes were estimated by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 38,063 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analyses indicated that ADR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.17) and CIR (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02) were stable during the whole day. In subgroup analyses, the effect of full-day block or inferior bowel preparation were more prominent, reflected by a significant reduction of ADR (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09-1.28; RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.24) and CIR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13; RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) in the afternoon, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy quality, as indicated by the ADR and CIR, is not affected by the time of day for procedures performed in block shifts. However, endoscopists' working full-day blocks and inferior bowel preparation are associated with a significant decrease in ADR and CIR in the afternoon.

What defines quality in small bowel capsule endoscopy

Small bowel capsule endoscopy is considered a first-line diagnostic tool for the investigation of small bowel diseases. Gastroenterological and endoscopic societies have proposed and established measures known as quality indicators, quality measures or performance measures for the majority of endoscopic procedures, in order to ensure competence, healthcare quality and define areas requiring improvement. However, there is a paucity of publications describing small bowel capsule endoscopy quality indicators. Hereby, we attempt to identify and describe a number of pre-procedure, intra-procedure and post-procedure quality indicators, regarding process measures in small bowel capsule endoscopy, after a comprehensive review of the literature.

Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is used widely, but its quality is highly variable, which may adversely affect patients. Research and quality-improvement initiatives in a variety of jurisdictions have sought to address this issue, often supported by the use of health administrative data. As these data are generally not collected for these purposes, it is critical to measure their validity before use. The aim of this study was to validate health administrative data definitions for 5 key colonoscopy elements through comparison to the clinical record.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, we randomly sampled 1968 colonoscopy and noncolonoscopy procedures performed at 23 hospitals and 5 nonhospital endoscopy clinics between April 2008 and March 2009 in Ontario. We compared definitions for 5 key colonoscopy elements (colonoscopy case, colonoscopy setting, colonoscopy completeness, anesthesiologist assistance and polypectomy) derived from the health administrative data to the clinical record. We calculated weighted and unweighted sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value, adjusted for clustering of patients within physicians, for each definition relative to the reference standard.

RESULTS

We abstracted 1845 records; in 1282 cases (69.5%), colonoscopy was intended or performed. The weighted sensitivity and specificity of colonoscopy case, nonhospital colonoscopy setting and anesthesiologist assistance exceeded 95%. The weighted sensitivity for colonoscopy completeness and polypectomy exceeded 95%, but specificity was less than 90%.

INTERPRETATION

Ontario health administrative data definitions for 5 key colonoscopy data elements performed well, with sensitivity and specificity values acceptable for use in research and quality-improvement initiatives. In jurisdictions where health administrative data are similarly used for research or quality improvement, similar studies could be considered.

Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous randomized studies have shown that changing certain features of colonoscopes, usually incorporated when switching from one endoscope generation to the next, mostly do not increase adenoma yield. There is, however, indirect evidence that it may be necessary to skip one instrument generation (ie, changing from one generation to the next but one) to achieve this effect.

METHODS

We compared the latest-generation colonoscopes from one company (Olympus Exera III, 190-C) with the next to last one (Olympus 160/5-C) in a prospective multicenter study randomized for the order of colonoscopes in a tandem fashion, involving 2 different examiners. Patients with increased risk for colorectal neoplasia undergoing colonoscopy (positive fecal occult blood test, personal/familial history of colorectal cancer/adenoma, rectal bleeding, recent change in bowel movements) were included. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate with the 190 (190-C) colonoscope in comparison with the 160/5 colonoscope (160/5-C).

RESULTS

A total of 856 patients (48.8% male; mean age, 58.3 years) with a personal (41%) or family (38%) history of colorectal neoplasia, rectal bleeding (19%), and other indications were included. Of the 429 patients in the 190-C first group, 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-20.1%) had at least one adenoma missed during the first procedure, compared with 30.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-34.6%) in the group with 160/5-C first (P < .001). Similarly, the adenoma detection rate during the first colonoscopy was 43.8% versus 36.5% (P = .030) for 190-C versus 160/5-C, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized tandem trial showed lower adenoma miss rates and higher adenoma detection rates for the newer 190 colonoscopes compared with the 160/5 series. These results suggest that it takes multiple improvements, such as those implemented over 2 instrument generations, before an effect on adenoma (miss) rate can be observed. (Study registration number: ISRCTN 2010-A01256-33.).

Advances in CRC Prevention: Screening and Surveillance

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