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

Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is closely related to bowel preparation, is the most important factor for colonoscopy quality assessment. New oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) have been developed to improve bowel preparation compliance. This study evaluated the efficacy of OSTs in terms of the ADR and bowel preparation status.

METHODS

Medical records of subjects under the age of 65 who underwent colonoscopy from March 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) was used as a bowel preparation for the first half of the study period, and OSTs were used for the second half. In total, 16 971 subjects were included in the study: 9199 (54.2%) used PEG-A, and 7772 (45.8%) used OSTs. Bowel cleansing quality was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The average age was 50 years. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (97.2% vs 95.0%, P < 0.001). The mean BBPS was also higher in the OST group (8.02 vs 7.75, P < 0.001). The adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the ADR and the sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) were higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (APC 0.56 ± 1.01 vs 0.48 ± 0.91, P < 0.001; ADR 34.5% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001; SSPDR 5.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PEG-A, OSTs yielded superior APC, ADRs, SSPDRs, and better bowel cleanliness. Therefore, OSTs are a good alternative for patients who have difficulty taking large-volume bowel preparation formulations.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers using the World Endoscopy Organization nomenclature

INTRODUCTION

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) have been proposed as a performance metric for colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Previously, there was no standardised terminology or reporting methods. In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) advised standardised definitions and prevalence calculation methodology.

AIMS

To assess PCCRC burden using WEO standardised methods, to explore causes of heterogeneity, and to review changes in prevalence over time METHODS: We updated a prior systematic review by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2021 to identify population-based studies (or multicentre studies representative of the local population) reporting PCCRC prevalence (PROSPERO [CRD42020183796]). Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. We estimated the PCCRC 3-year prevalence using WEO-recommended methodologies and investigated between-study sources of heterogeneity. We examined changes in prevalence over time.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reporting on 25 872 PCCRC cases met eligibility criteria. Pooled PCCRC 3 year prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%, I²  = 98.2%) across four European studies using WEO precise methodology. Proximal PCCRC prevalence was greater than distal (9.7% [95% CI = 7.0%-12.4%] vs 5.4% [95% CI = 2.9%-7.8%], I²  = 99.2%). Seven studies reporting PCCRC rates over time showed no consistent trend: four showed a decrease, one an increase and two were unchanged. Between-study heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled 3-year PCCRC prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%). Despite WEO standardised methodology to define and calculate PCCRC rates, there was significant heterogeneity among studies. Comparing rates between populations remains challenging and additional studies are needed to better understand the global PCCRC burden to inform quality assurance programs.

Analysis of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Its Subtypes in a Screening Programme

Using the algorithm of the World Endoscopy Organisation (WEO), we have studied retrospectively all colorectal cancers, both detected and non-detected by the Basque Country screening programme from 2009 to 2017. In the screening programme 61,335 colonoscopies were performed following a positive Faecal Immunochemical test (FIT) (≥20 µg Hb/g faeces) and the 128 cases of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) detected were analysed. Among them, 50 interval type PCCRCs were diagnosed (before the recommended surveillance), 0.8 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, and 78 non-interval type PCCRCs (in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time or delayed), 1.3 per 1000 colonoscopies. Among the non-interval type PCCRCs, 61 cases were detected in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time (type A) and 17 when the surveillance was delayed (type B), 1 case per 1000 colonoscopies performed and 0.28 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, respectively. Interval type PCCRC is less frequent than non-interval type PCCRC. In interval type PCCRCs, CRCs detected in advanced stages (stages III-IV) were significantly more frequent than those detected in early stages, compared to those of non-interval type PCCRCs (OR = 3.057; 95% CI, 1.410-6.625; p < 0.005). Non-interval type B PCCRCs are less frequent than non-interval type A PCCRCs, but the frequency of advanced stages is higher in interval type B PCCRCs.

Association Between Polyp Detection Rate and Post-Colonoscopy Cancer Among Patients Undergoing Diagnostic Colonoscopy

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) can arise from missed cancers, missed premalignant lesions, incomplete resection, and new cancers with an accelerated route to cancer.¹.

Impact of new techniques on adenoma detection rate based on meta-analysis data

The high incidence of colorectal cancer and the occurrence of interval cancers after screening colonoscopy support the need to develop methods to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). This review focuses on the importance of ADR and the impact of new techniques on ADR based on meta-analysis data. The low-cost interventions (such as water-aided colonoscopy, second observation, and dynamic position change) were effective in increasing ADR. So were enhanced imaging techniques and add-on devices. Increase with higher cost interventions such as newer scopes is uncertain. Water exchange (WE) has the highest ADR compared with water immersion, air insufflation, and carbon dioxide insufflation. Second observation with forward or retroflexed views improved the right colon ADR. Add-on devices result in only modest improvement in ADR, of particular help in low performing endoscopists. The second-generation narrow-band imaging (NBI) provided a two-fold brighter image than the previous system. The improvement in ADR with NBI required the “best” quality bowel preparation. New endoscopic techniques incur various additional costs, nil for WE, small for tip attachments but large for the newer scopes. In conclusion, one or more of the above methods to improve ADR may be applicable in Taiwan. A comparison of these approaches to determine which is the most cost-effective is warranted.

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

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

Benefits of switching from guaiac-based faecal occult blood to faecal immunochemical testing: experience from the Wallonia-Brussels colorectal cancer screening programme

Background

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have replaced guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBTs) in several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of this transition based on the Wallonia–Brussels-organised CRC screening programme.

Methods

A total of 1,569,868 individuals aged 50–74 years, who were invited to screening during 2009–2017, were studied by linking their screening records with insurance, pathology and cancer data in the Belgian Cancer Registry. We compared neoplasm detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) of gFOBT and FIT at 15 µg haemoglobin per gram cut-off in screen-naive individuals. We furthermore examined the incidence rates of interval cancer in gFOBT- and FIT-based screening programme.

Results

Advanced neoplasms were detected less frequently by gFOBT (0.8%) than by FIT (1.3%), with a difference of 0.5% (P < 0.01). PPVs were lower for gFOBT (15.1%) than for FIT (21.7%) for advanced neoplasms (difference 6.6%, P < 0.01). Compared to participants with negative gFOBT, those with negative FIT were 77% less likely to develop interval cancer (incidence rate ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.33).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that in an organised CRC screening programme, replacing gFOBT with FIT improved neoplasm detection rate and substantially reduced interval cancer incidence.

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.