Training interventions to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Improved Adenoma Detection Rate Using a Novel Colonoscopic Distal Attachment: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effect of Embrella, a novel-designed colonoscopic distal attachment, on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), compared with standard colonoscopy in routine practice.

METHODS

All consecutive participants who underwent routine colonoscopic examinations at 3 endoscopy centers in China were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the Embrella-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) or standard colonoscopy (SC) groups. ADR, APC, inspection time, pain scores, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,179 participants were randomized into the EAC (n = 593) and SC groups (n = 586). EAC increased the overall ADR from 24.6% to 34.2% ( P < 0.001) and improved APC from 0.44 to 0.64 ( P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses indicated that EAC significantly improved ADR for adenomas < 10 mm (13.8% vs 8.5%, P = 0.004 for 5-9 mm and 27.0% vs 17.2%, P < 0.001 for < 5 mm), nonpedunculated adenomas (26.6% vs 18.8%, P < 0.001), and adenomas in the transverse (10.8% vs 6.1%, P = 0.004) and left colon (21.6% vs 13.7%, P < 0.001). APC in the subgroup analyses was consistent with ADR. The mean inspection time was shorter with EAC (6.52 vs 6.68 minutes, P = 0.046), with no significant impact on participants' pain scores ( P = 0.377). Moreover, no EAC-related adverse events occurred.

DISCUSSION

EAC significantly increased ADR and APC compared with SC, particularly for adenomas <10 mm, nonpedunculated adenomas, and adenomas in the transverse and left colon.

SIED-GISCOR recommendations for colonoscopy in screening programs: Part I - Diagnostic

The implementation of FIT programs reduces incidence and mortality from CRC in the screened subjects. The ultimate efficacy for CRC morbidity and mortality prevention in a FIT program depends on the colonoscopy in FIT+ subjects that has the task of detecting and removing these advanced lesions. Recently, there has been growing evidence on factors that influence the quality of colonoscopy specifically withing organized FIT programs, prompting to dedicated interventions in order to maximize the benefit/harm ratio of post-FIT colonoscopy. This document focuses on the diagnostic phase of colonoscopy, providing indications on how to standardise colonoscopy in FIT+ subjects, regarding timing of examination, management of antithrombotic therapy, bowel preparation, competence and sedation.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk.

METHODS

Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk.

RESULTS

Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82).

CONCLUSIONS

A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety.

RESULTS

We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.

An Italian prospective multicenter study on colonoscopy practice and quality: What has changed in the last 10 years

BACKGROUND

A relevant number of adenomas can be missed during colonoscopy.

AIMS

Assess the current status of colonoscopy procedures in Italian centers.

METHODS

A prospective observational study involving 17 hospitals (34 endoscopists) included consecutive patients undergoing standard colonoscopy. In the first phase, endoscopists performed consecutive colonoscopies. In the second phase, retraining via an online learning platform was planned, while in the third phase data were collected analogously to phase 1.

RESULTS

A total of 3,504 patients were enrolled. Overall, a BBPS score ≥6 was obtained in 95.6% of cases (94.8% and 96.9% in the pre- and post-training phases, respectively). 88.4% of colonoscopies had a withdrawal time ≥6 min (88.2% and 88.7% in the pre- and post-training phases). Median adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 39.1%, with no significant differences between the pre- and post-training phases (40.1% vs 36.9%; P = 0.83). In total, 81% of endoscopists had a ADR performance above the 25% threshold.

CONCLUSION

High colonoscopy quality standards are achieved by the Italian hospitals involved. Quality improvement initiatives and repeated module-based colonoscopy-training have been promoted in Italy during the last decade, which appear to have had a significant impact on quality colonoscopy metrics together with the activation of colorectal cancer screening programs.

Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: Where are we heading?

Background and study aims  Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to impact several fields within gastroenterology. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, AI-based tools have translated into clinical practice faster than expected. We aimed to evaluate the status of research for AI in gastroenterology while predicting its future applications. Methods  All studies registered on Clinicaltrials.gov up to November 2021 were analyzed. The studies included used AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), hepatology, and pancreatobiliary diseases. Data regarding the study field, methodology, endpoints, and publication status were retrieved, pooled, and analyzed to observe underlying temporal and geographical trends. Results  Of the 103 study entries retrieved according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 76 (74 %) were based on AI application to gastrointestinal endoscopy, mainly for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia (52/103, 50 %). Image analysis was also more frequently reported than data analysis for pancreaticobiliary (six of 10 [60 %]), liver diseases (eight of nine [89 %]), and IBD (six of eight [75 %]). Overall, 48 of 103 study entries (47 %) were interventional and 55 (53 %) observational. In 2018, one of eight studies (12.5 %) were interventional, while in 2021, 21 of 34 (61.8 %) were interventional, with an inverse ratio between observational and interventional studies during the study period. The majority of the studies were planned as single-center (74 of 103 [72 %]) and more were in Asia (45 of 103 [44 %]) and Europe (44 of 103 [43 %]). Conclusions  AI implementation in gastroenterology is dominated by computer-aided detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia. The timeframe for translational research is characterized by a swift conversion of observational into interventional studies.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

Quality management system for screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves detection of Helicobacter pylori -negative interval gastric cancer

Background and study aims  Double-checking the findings of examinations is necessary for endoscopy quality control in gastric cancer screening; however, there have been no reports showing its effectiveness. We prospectively analyzed the effectiveness of a quality management system (QMS) in endoscopy for gastric cancer screening. Patients and methods  QMS was defined as having images and reports checked by a second endoscopist on the same day and reporting inconsistencies to the examining endoscopist. Patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer (EGC) in the 2 years before and after the introduction of QMS were divided into two groups: the interval cancer group, which included those for whom cancer was detected within 1 year of the last endoscopy and the noninterval cancer group. Changes in detection rates were compared. Results  Before the introduction of QMS, 11 interval EGC cases were diagnosed among 36,189 endoscopies, whereas after the introduction, 32 interval ECG cases were diagnosed among 38,290 endoscopies ( P  = 0.004). Fifteen noninterval EGC cases were diagnosed before the introduction, while 12 noninterval EGC cases were diagnosed after the introduction; no significant difference was observed. Subanalyses by Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection status revealed no difference in the detection rate among HP-positive EGC patients, but the detection rates among HP-eradicated and HP-naïve EGC patients were improved ( P  = 0.005 and P  = 0.011). Logistic regression analysis showed that QMS was an independent predictor for detection of HP-negative interval EGC ( P  = 0.017, OR = 4.4, 95 % CI: 2.0-9.7). Conclusions  QMS improved the detection rate for HP-negative interval early gastric cancer. (UMIN000042991).

Too Good to Be True? Evaluation of Colonoscopy Sensitivity Assumptions Used in Policy Models

BACKGROUND

Models can help guide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening policy. While models are carefully calibrated and validated, there is less scrutiny of assumptions about test performance.

METHODS

We examined the validity of the CRC-SPIN model and colonoscopy sensitivity assumptions. Standard sensitivity assumptions, consistent with published decision analyses, assume sensitivity equal to 0.75 for diminutive adenomas (<6mm), 0.85 for small adenomas (6-10mm), 0.95 for large adenomas ( {greater than or equal to} 10mm), and 0.95 for preclinical cancer. We also selected adenoma sensitivity that resulted in more accurate predictions. Targets were drawn from the Wheat Bran Fiber study. We examined how well the model predicted outcomes measured over a three-year follow-up period, including: the number of adenomas detected, the size of the largest adenoma detected, and incident CRC.

RESULTS

Using standard sensitivity assumptions, the model predicted adenoma prevalence that was too low (42.5% versus 48.9% observed, with 95% confidence interval 45.3%-50.7%) and detection of too few large adenomas (5.1% versus 14.% observed, with 95% confidence interval 11.8%-17.4%). Predictions were close to targets when we set sensitivities to 0.20 for diminutive adenomas, 0.60 for small adenomas, 0.80 for 10-20mm adenomas, and 0.98 for adenomas 20mm and larger.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy may be less accurate than currently assumed, especially for diminutive adenomas. Alternatively, the CRC-SPIN model may not accurately simulate onset and progression of adenomas in higher-risk populations.

IMPACT

Misspecification of either colonoscopy sensitivity or disease progression in high-risk populations may impact the predicted effectiveness of CRC screening. When possible, decision analyses used to inform policy should address these uncertainties.

Progress in understanding of factors related to colonoscopic adenoma detection rate

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the proportion of average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in whom an adenoma is found, and it is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. ADR is closely related to the risk of interval colorectal cancer. A deeply study of ADR is essential for endoscopists. In this paper, we review the progress in the understanding of factors related to ADR before, during, and after colonoscopy, as well as several issues worthy of attention.

Pre-administration of super-low volume polyethylene glycol is as effective as senna laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Senna laxatives are commonly used for bowel preparation before colonoscopies in Japan. However, this laxative frequently causes complications such as abdominal pain. This study aimed to establish a novel method of bowel preparation, which involved the pre-administration of super-low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) for three days followed by the same-day administration of low volume PEG.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, multicenter, investigator-blinded, phase 2, randomized control trial. The intake of 13.9 g (120 mL) of PEG or 1 g of a senna laxative for 3 days before the examination was indicated for each group, and 2 L of PEG solution was used for preparation on the examination day. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston bowel preparation scale. The secondary endpoints were the adenoma detection rate and occurrence of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients were initially enrolled. A total of 122 patients from each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the responder rates were the same for the two groups (56.6% vs 50.8%). Additionally, the adenoma detection rate did not differ between the two groups (34.9% vs 41.8%, P = 0.3795). In contrast, adherence was higher in the PEG group (93.4% vs 82.8%, P = 0.0101), and the occurrence of complications was lower in the PEG group (1.7% vs 16.4%, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The novel super-low volume PEG method for bowel preparation was as effective as the conventional method with senna laxatives.

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.

METHODS

A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I2=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  The quality of screening-related colonoscopy depends on several physician- and patient-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies considerably between endoscopists. Educational interventions aim to improve endoscopists' ADRs, but their overall impact is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether there is an association between educational interventions and colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods  A comprehensive search was performed through August 2019 for studies reporting any associations between educational interventions and any colonoscopy quality indicators. Our primary outcome of interest was ADR. Two authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. Risk of bias was also assessed for included studies. Pooled rate ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results  From 2,253 initial studies, eight were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 86,008 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in overall ADR (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.25 to 1.42, 95 % prediction interval 1.09 to 1.53) and proximal ADR (RR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.29 to 1.48), with borderline increases in withdrawal time, ([WT], mean difference 0.29 minutes, 95 % CI - 0.12 to 0.70 minutes). Educational interventions did not affect cecal intubation rate ([CIR], RR 1.01, 95 % CI 1.00 to 1.01). Heterogeneity was considerable across many of the analyses. Conclusions  Educational interventions are associated with significant improvements in ADR, in particular, proximal ADR, and are not associated with improvements in WT or CIR. Educational interventions should be considered an important option in quality improvement programs aiming to optimize the performance of screening-related colonoscopy.

Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous reports have suggested that a longer withdrawal time (WT) during colonoscopy led to an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR); however, there are few controlled studies that substantiated monitoring WT as an educational method. We aimed to validate a feedback and monitoring system to improve the ADR in screening colonoscopy in a prospective case-control setting.

METHODS

After collecting data in the pre-feedback period (3.5 months), the individual performance and the average ADR and WT values of the facility were provided to 6 endoscopists in the intervention group, while 3 endoscopists were isolated as the control group during the feedback period (2 weeks). The intervention group consisted of two subgroups, the Fast and Slow WT groups, according to the results from the pre-feedback period. The endoscopists in the intervention group were instructed to be aware of their own WT in each examination during the post-feedback period (4 months). The performances of all endoscopists in the post-feedback period were analyzed and compared with those in the pre-feedback period.

RESULTS

Among the initial analyses, the correlation analysis and multivariate analysis revealed that WT was an independent predictor for the ADR (P = 0.0101). After providing individual performance feedback and instruction regarding real-time WT monitoring, the WT was significantly prolonged in the Fast WT group (P = 0.0346) but did not change in the Slow WT and control groups. In addition, the ADR of the Fast WT group significantly improved after the intervention (P = 0.024), whereas the ADR of the Slow WT and control groups did not change.

CONCLUSION

Providing individual feedback on ADR and WT and monitoring WT helped improve the endoscopists' ADRs.