Physician Non-adherence to Colonoscopy Interval Guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

Addressing challenges and barriers to rural Veteran participation in clinical research within the Veterans Affairs healthcare system

The execution of clinical research in medical facilities that serve rural populations and/or that have lower care complexity levels has been proven to be challenging, as compared to larger healthcare institutions with higher complexity levels. Issues such as isolation, lack of organizational support and resources, difficulty with enrollment of study participants in rural settings, and challenges with identifying and retaining experienced clinical research staff serve as barriers to developing and establishing the necessary infrastructure to conduct clinical research at rural and/or smaller medical facilities. The United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) has the largest integrated health care system in the country and provides care to over 9 million Veterans. These considerations, combined with feedback collected from a subset of these types of (VA) Medical Centers (VAMCs) on this topic, demonstrate the need for a comprehensive enterprise-level strategy to address these challenges within the VA healthcare system. The VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) is a clinical research infrastructure that has vast expertise in the conduct of multi-site clinical research within the VA and is well poised to lead this effort. This manuscript describes the CSP "Advancing Capacity for Clinical Research through Engagement with Strategic Sites (ACCESS)" initiative. It focuses specifically on the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the CSP ACCESS Workgroup (AW) during the development and implementation of a comprehensive pilot plan for engaging rural/lower complexity VAMCs (strategic sites) to participate in CSP clinical research.

Optimizing Timing of Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A Pilot Cluster Randomized Trial of a Knowledge Translation Tool

BACKGROUND

Endoscopists have low adherence to guideline-recommended colonoscopy surveillance intervals. We performed a cluster-randomized single-blind pilot trial in Winnipeg, Canada, to assess the effectiveness of a newly developed digital application tool that computes guideline-recommended follow-up intervals.

METHODS

Participant endoscopists were randomized to either receive access to the digital application (intervention group) or not receive access (control group). Pathology reports and final recommendations for colonoscopies performed in the 1-4 months before randomization and 3-7 months postrandomization were extracted. Generalized estimating equation models were used to determine whether the access to the digital application predicted guideline congruence.

RESULTS

We included 15 endoscopists in the intervention group and 14 in the control group (of 42 eligible endoscopists in the city), with 343 patients undergoing colonoscopy before randomization and 311 postrandomization. Endoscopists who received the application made guideline-congruent recommendations 67.6% of the time before randomization and 76.1% of the time after randomization. Endoscopists in the control group made guideline-congruent recommendations 72.4% and 72.9% of the time before and after randomization, respectively. Endoscopists in the intervention group trended to have an increase in guideline adherence comparing postintervention with preintervention (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-2.74). By contrast, the control group had no change in guideline adherence (OR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.50-2.29). Endoscopists in the intervention group with less than median guideline congruence prerandomization had a significant increase in guideline-congruent recommendations postrandomization.

DISCUSSION

An application that provides colonoscopy surveillance intervals may help endoscopists with guideline congruence, especially those with a lower preintervention congruence with guideline recommendations ( ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT04889352).

Frequency of colorectal surveillance colonoscopies for adenomatous polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The purpose of this study was to assess evidence on the frequency of polyp surveillance colonoscopies performed earlier than the recommended follow-up intervals in clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed based on electronic searches in PubMed and Embase. Research articles, letters to the editors, and review articles, published before April 2022, were included. Studies that focused on the intervals of polyp surveillance in adult populations were selected. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure (ROBINS-E) was used to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed with Forest plots to illustrate the results.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies, comprising 11 172 patients from Australia, Europe, and North America, were included for analysis. The quality of the studies was moderate. Overall, 38% (95% CI: 30-47%) of colonoscopies were undertaken earlier than their respective national clinical guidelines. In risk-stratified surveillance, 10 studies contained data relating to low-risk polyp surveillance intervals and 30% (95% CI: 29-31%) of colonoscopies were performed earlier than recommended. Eight studies contained data relating to intermediate-risk polyp surveillance and 15% (95% CI: 14-17%) of colonoscopies were performed earlier than recommended. One study showed that 6% (95% CI: 4-10%) of colonoscopies performed for high-risk polyp surveillance were performed earlier than recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of polyp surveillance was performed earlier than the guidelines suggested. This provides evidence of the potential overuse of healthcare resources and the opportunity to improve hospital efficiency.

Impact of Epic Smartlist and Lumens Software in Improving OP-29 Compliance at a Tertiary Health Care Network

Background OP-29 is a Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) measure to ensure that endoscopists recommend appropriate follow-up intervals after normal colonoscopy in average risk patients. Failure to report OP-29 compliance can adversely affect hospital quality star rating as well as reimbursement for health care. The aim of our quality improvement project was to improve OP-29 compliance to the top decile over three years. Methodology Our sample included patients between 50-75 years of age who received average risk screening colonoscopies with normal findings. We provided intensive education to endoscopists about the importance of OP-29 compliance, developed an Epic Smartlist that directs our endoscopists to list an appropriate reason for colonoscopy intervals other than 10 years, and monitored OP-29 compliance monthly. We became the first health network in the United States to implement the Lumens endoscopy report writing software (Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, USA) and added the OP-29-related Epic Smartlist to the Lumens colonoscopy note template. All statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA) to compute the means and frequencies of outcomes. Results Our sample included 2,171 patients with a mean age of 60.5 years of whom the majority were female (57.2%) and Caucasians (90%). Our OP-29 score increased from 87.47% to 100% over the course of three years, and this steady improvement was seen broadly across our network. We compared our network score averages to our state and national averages and consistently demonstrated higher compliance rates while reaching the top decile by 2020. Conclusion We believe our improved OP-29 compliance has reduced colonoscopy overutilization, improved health care quality, and reduced health care costs for our patients and health network. To our knowledge, this is the first reported project towards improving OP-29 compliance utilizing the Epic Lumens software. Epic Lumens (Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, USA) added this Smartlist as quick buttons in the standard colonoscopy procedure note templates they built for other organizations to improve health care quality and cost nationally.

Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level

In the summer of 2020, multiple efforts were undertaken to establish safe and effective vaccines to combat the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In the United States (U.S.), Operation Warp Speed (OWS) was the program designated to coordinate such efforts. OWS was a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector, that aimed to help accelerate control of the COVID-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) was identified as a potential collaborator in several large-scale OWS Phase III clinical trial efforts designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various vaccines that were in development. Given the global importance of these trials, it was recognized that there would be a need for a coordinated, centralized effort within VA to ensure that its medical centers (sites) would be ready and able to efficiently initiate, recruit, and enroll into these trials.

The manuscript outlines the partnership and start-up activities led by two key divisions of the VA's Office of Research and Development's clinical research enterprise. These efforts focused on site and enterprise-level requirements for multiple trials, with one trial serving as the most prominently featured of these studies within the VA. As a result, several best practices arose that included designating clinical trial facilitators to study sites to support study initiation activities and successful study enrollment at these locations in an efficient and timely fashion.

Real-world compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer polypectomy surveillance guidelines: an observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Overuse of screening colonoscopy increases cost and procedural adverse events, but inadequate surveillance can miss the development of colorectal cancer. We measured compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) polypectomy surveillance guidelines in clinical records and a survey.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study comparing surveillance intervals for first-time average-risk colonoscopies with the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. Cases were analyzed from 3 intervals (March 2021 to May 2021, November 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to May 2022), collectively termed the postguideline period, and a baseline period from November 2019 to January 2020. Real-world compliance rates were compared with results of a survey conducted between November 2020 and February 2021.

RESULTS

Overall compliance was 48.9% among 532 colonoscopies, ranging from 8.3% for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), 88.3% for high-risk adenomas, 63.1% for sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), and 88.6% for hyperplastic polyps. Compliance for LRA increased from the baseline period (.8% vs 8.3%, P = .003), and 95.3% of nonadherent LRA cases followed the 2012 USMSTF guidelines. Compliance for LRAs was 18.6% among respondents who provided a compliant surveillance interval for LRAs in the survey. Noncompliance was associated with finishing training >10 years ago (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7) and performing over 800 colonoscopies annually (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of the 2020 USMSTF surveillance guidelines remains low at 2 years. Further research into outcomes for patients with LRAs and SSPs may increase guideline adoption.

Compliance with follow-up guidelines after high-risk colorectal polyp removal: a population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After high-risk colorectal adenoma removal, colorectal cancer risk remains higher than that in the general population. Depending on polyp characteristics, a 3-month or 3-year follow-up colonoscopy is recommended, and clear follow-up instructions must be given to the patient. Our primary aim was to evaluate compliance with French follow-up recommendations. Second, we evaluated the impact of how the information was given and if patients actually underwent their control colonoscopy according to the instructions given.

METHODS

We collected data from the Burgundy polyp population-based registry and medical records from the endoscopy centers of the area. Between June 30, 2014 and July 1, 2015, 405 patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

Written follow-up instructions were provided to 345 patients (85.2%), and 184 of them (53.3%) complied with guidelines. For 29.9% the interval to follow-up colonoscopy was longer than recommended, and for 6.4% the interval was shorter. Among the 303 patients who had clear follow-up instructions, 42.2% had their control colonoscopy and 83.6% respected the stipulated interval. Follow-up instructions were found in the colonoscopy report in at least 49% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with follow-up guidelines was poor: Inappropriate intervals were often longer than recommended. Patients with written follow-up instructions and those who underwent follow-up colonoscopy mostly followed these instructions. Ensuring compliance with guidelines and giving written instructions to patients should be primary goals to achieve effective follow-up. Gastroenterologist training should be improved in this way.

The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Impact of Community Referral on Colonoscopy Quality Metrics in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center

INTRODUCTION

The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 expands the number of options veterans have to ensure timely access to high-quality care. There are minimal data currently available analyzing the impact and quality of colonoscopy metrics in veterans receiving procedures within the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) vs community settings.

METHODS

All patients at our academic VA medical center who were referred to a community care colonoscopy (CCC) for positive fecal immunochemical testing, colorectal cancer screening, and adenoma surveillance from 2015 to 2018 were identified and matched for sex, age, and year of procedure to patients referred for a VA-based colonoscopy (VAC). Metrics measured included time to procedure measured in days, adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy, sessile serrated polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation quality, and compliance with guideline recommendations for surveillance. Patient comorbidities were also recorded. Variable associations with adenoma detection and compliance with surveillance guidelines were analyzed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 235 veterans (mean age, 64.6 years, and 95.7% male) underwent a CCC and had an appropriately matched VAC. ADR in the community was 36.9% compared with 62.6% for the VAC group (P < 0.0001). The mean number of adenomas per procedure in the community was 0.77 compared with 1.83 per VAC (P < 0.0001). CCC AADR was 8.9% compared with 18.3% for VAC (P = 0.003). The cecal intubation rate for community colonoscopies was 90.6% compared with 95.3% for VA colonoscopies (P = 0.047). Community care compliance with surveillance guidelines was 74.9% compared with 93.3% for VA (P < 0.0001). This nonconformity was primarily due to recommending a shorter interval follow-up in the CCC group (15.3%) compared with the VAC group (5.5%) (P = 0.0012). The mean time to procedure was 58.4 days (±33.7) for CCC compared with 83.8 days (±38.6) for VAC (P < 0.0001). In multivariate regression, CCC was associated with lower ADR (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.63) and lower compliance with surveillance guidelines (odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.45) (P < 0.0001 for both).

DISCUSSION

Time to colonoscopy was significantly shorter for CCC compared with VAC. However, compared with VA colonoscopies, there was significantly lower ADR, AADR, and surveillance guideline compliance for services rendered by community providers. This impact on quality of care should be further studied to ensure that colonoscopy quality standards for veterans are not compromised by the process of care and site of care.

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Digital System for Histologic Classification of Colorectal Polyps

Importance

Colorectal polyps are common, and their histopathologic classification is used in the planning of follow-up surveillance. Substantial variation has been observed in pathologists' classification of colorectal polyps, and improved assessment by pathologists may be associated with reduced subsequent underuse and overuse of colonoscopy.

Objective

To compare standard microscopic assessment with an artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented digital system that annotates regions of interest within digitized polyp tissue and predicts polyp type using a deep learning model to assist pathologists in colorectal polyp classification.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center and a community hospital in New Hampshire, 100 slides with colorectal polyp samples were read by 15 pathologists using a microscope and an AI-augmented digital system, with a washout period of at least 12 weeks between use of each modality. The study was conducted from February 10 to July 10, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Accuracy and time of evaluation were used to compare pathologists' performance when a microscope was used with their performance when the AI-augmented digital system was used. Outcomes were compared using paired t tests and mixed-effects models.

Results

In assessments of 100 slides with colorectal polyp specimens, use of the AI-augmented digital system significantly improved pathologists' classification accuracy compared with microscopic assessment from 73.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-76.2%) to 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.8%) (P < .001). The overall difference in the evaluation time per slide between the digital system (mean, 21.7 seconds; 95% CI, 20.8-22.7 seconds) and microscopic examination (mean, 13.0 seconds; 95% CI, 12.4-13.5 seconds) was -8.8 seconds (95% CI, -9.8 to -7.7 seconds), but this difference decreased as pathologists became more familiar and experienced with the digital system; the difference between the time of evaluation on the last set of 20 slides for all pathologists when using the microscope and the digital system was 4.8 seconds (95% CI, 3.0-6.5 seconds).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this diagnostic study, an AI-augmented digital system significantly improved the accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps compared with microscopic assessment. If applied broadly to clinical practice, this tool may be associated with decreases in subsequent overuse and underuse of colonoscopy and thus with improved patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed.

RESULTS

We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%).

CONCLUSION

Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trainee participation during screening colonoscopy does not affect ADR at subsequent surveillance, but may result in early follow-up

Background and study aims  Training future endoscopists is essential to meet rising demands for screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Studies have shown conflicting results regarding the influence of trainees on adenoma detection rates (ADR). It is unclear whether trainee participation during screening adversely affects ADR at subsequent surveillance and whether it alters surveillance recommendations. Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis of average-risk screening colonoscopies and surveillance exams over a subsequent 10-year period was performed. The initial inclusion criteria were met by 5208 screening and 2285 surveillance exams. Patients with poor preparation were excluded. The final analysis included 7106 procedures, including 4922 screening colonoscopies and 2184 surveillance exams. Data were collected from pathology and endoscopy electronic databases. The primary outcome was the ADR with and without trainee participation. Surveillance recommendations were analyzed as a secondary outcome. Results  Trainees participated in 1131 (23 %) screening and in 232 (11 %) surveillance exams. ADR did not significantly differ ( P  = 0.19) for screening exams with trainee participation (19.5 %) or those without (21.4 %). ADRs were higher at surveillance exams with (22.4 %) and without (27.5 %) trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous colonoscopy. Shorter surveillance intervals were given more frequently if trainees participated during the initial screening procedure ( P  = 0.0001). Conclusions  ADR did not significantly differ in screening or surveillance colonoscopies with or without trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous screening exam. However, trainee participation may result in shorter surveillance recommendations.

Colonoscopy Quality and Adherence to Postpolypectomy Surveillance Guidelines in an Underinsured Clinic System

Background

Delivery of high-quality colonoscopy and adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines is essential to a high-quality screening program, especially in safety net systems with limited resources. We sought to assess colonoscopy quality and ensure appropriate surveillance in a network of safety net practices.

Methods

We identified age-eligible patients ages 50-75 within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic system with evidence of colonoscopy in preceding 10 years. We performed chart reviews to assess key aspects of colonoscopy quality: bowel preparation quality, evidence of cecal intubation, cecal withdrawal time, and the adenoma detection rate. We then utilized established guidelines to assess and revise surveillance colonoscopy intervals, determine whether appropriate surveillance had taken place, and schedule overdue patients as appropriate.

Results

Of 26,394 age-eligible patients, a total of 3,970 patients had evidence of prior colonoscopy and 1,709 charts were selected and reviewed. Mean age was 57, 54% identified as women and 51% identified as Hispanic. Of 1709 colonoscopies reviewed, 77% had data on bowel preparation, and of those, 85% had adequate preparation quality. Cecal intubation was documented in 89% of procedures. Adequate cecal withdrawal time was documented in 59% of those with documented cecal intubation. Overall adenoma detection rate was 42%. Initial surveillance interval was clearly stated in 72% (n = 1238) of procedures. Of these, initial recommended intervals were too short in 24.5% (n = 304) and too long in 3.6% (n = 45). A total of 132 patients (10.7%) were overdue for appropriate surveillance and were referred for follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of screening colonoscopy was high, but reporting was incomplete. We found fair adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines, with significant opportunities to extend surveillance intervals and improve adherence to best practices.

New Ultra Low Volume Bowel Preparation and Overview of Existing Bowel Preparations

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential in achieving a good quality colonoscopy. However, one of the barriers to achieving high-quality bowel cleansing is the patient's tolerability. Different bowel preparations have been developed to improve tolerability while maintaining adequate bowel cleansing.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to explore the pros and cons of commonly used bowel preparations, particularly highlighting the new ultra-low volume bowel preparation.

METHODS

Extensive literature search was carried out on various databases to evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of different bowel cleansing agents, including findings of recent clinical trials on ultra-low bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been commonly used as a bowel prep. Due to its high volume required to ingest to achieve an adequate effect, it has been combined with various adjuncts to reduce the volume to make it more tolerable. Magnesium and phosphate-based preps can achieve low volume, but they can be associated with multiple side effects, mainly electrolyte disturbances. Ultra low volume prep (NER1006) was achieved by combing PEG with ascorbic acid, and its efficacy and side effects were demonstrated in three noninferiority studies.

CONCLUSION

It is important to consider patient preferences, co-morbidities and tolerability, and efficacy and side effect profiles when choosing bowel prep for patients undergoing colonoscopy. New ultra-low bowel prep showed promising results in initial clinical trials, but further real-world post-marketing data will inform its value in clinical practice.

What Is Organized Screening and What Is Its Value?

Most screening in the United States occurs in an opportunistic fashion, although organized screening occurs in some integrated health care systems. Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening consists of an explicit screening policy, defined target population, implementation team, health care team for clinical care delivery, quality assurance infrastructure, and method for identifying cancer outcomes. Implementation of an organized screening program offers opportunities to systematically assess the success of the program and develop interventions to address identified gaps in an effort to optimize CRC outcomes. There is evidence of that organized screening is associated with improvements in screening participation and CRC mortality.

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer Tied to Advanced Colorectal Polyps: An Untapped Opportunity to Screen First-Degree Relatives and Decrease Cancer Burden

Advanced adenomas represent a subset of colorectal polyps that are known to confer an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia to the affected individual and their first-degree relatives (FDRs). Accordingly, professional guidelines suggest earlier and more intensive screening for FDRs of those with advanced adenomas similar to FDRs of those with colorectal cancer (CRC). Although the risk to family members is less clear among patients with advanced serrated polyps, they are often considered in the same category. Unfortunately, there is a growing concern that patients, endoscopists, and primary care providers are unaware of the familial risk associated with these polyps, leaving a wide gap in screening these high-risk individuals. Herein, we propose a standardized language around advanced colorectal polyps and present a detailed review of the literature on associated familial risk. We outline the challenges to implementing the current screening recommendations and suggest approaches to overcome these limitations, including a proposed new colonoscopy quality metric to capture communication of familial CRC risk. Improving screening in these high-risk groups has the potential to substantially reduce the burden of CRC.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose.

METHODS

In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

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.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy

Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)-based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.

Over-Utilization of Repeat Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Quality Registry Study

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend that patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) undergo surveillance endoscopy every 3-5 years. Using a national registry, we assessed compliance to recommended surveillance intervals in patients with NDBE and identified factors associated with compliance.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. Data abstracted include procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy/pathology results, and recommendations for future endoscopy. Patients with an indication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, with non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia on pathological examination, were included. Compliance was defined as a recommendation to undergo subsequent endoscopy between 3 and 5 years. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with compliance.

RESULTS

Of 786,712 endoscopies assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) endoscopies in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 61.3 years, 60.4% men, 90.2% white, mean BE length was 2.3 cm). Most cases were performed by Gastroenterologists (92.3%) with propofol (78.7%). A total of 29,978 procedures (55.8%) resulted in pathology-confirmed BE. Among procedures with NDBE (n = 25,945), 29.9% were noncompliant with the 3-year threshold; most (26.9%) recommended surveillance at 1- to 2-year intervals. Patient factors such as extremes of age, black race, geographic region, type of sedation, and increasing BE length were associated with noncompliance.

DISCUSSION

Approximately 30% of patients with NDBE are recommended to undergo surveillance endoscopy too soon. Patient factors associated with inappropriate utilization include extremes of age, black race, and increasing BE length. Compliance with appropriate endoscopic follow-up as a quality measure in BE is poor.

Surveillance colonoscopies frequently booked earlier than the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines: findings of a single centre audit

BACKGROUND

To assess the adherence rate of surveillance colonoscopy booking intervals to recommended National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

METHODS

Patients on The Queen Elizabeth Hospital colorectal unit surveillance colonoscopy waiting list were included in this audit. Patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, follow-up plans and pathology results were analysed. Patients were categorized as normal/non-neoplastic finding, low-risk adenomas, high-risk adenomas, personal history of colorectal cancer (CRC) and family history of CRC. Booked colonoscopy within 2 months of guideline recommended interval was considered correct.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients were included (59.1% male; mean age 60 years). Two hundred and fifty-one (53.7%) patients had an incorrect surveillance colonoscopy booking. Twenty-seven patients with a normal/non-neoplastic previous colonoscopy not requiring surveillance colonoscopy were incorrectly booked for a colonoscopy. For the 222 patients booked incorrectly and requiring surveillance colonoscopy, 88.7% were early and 11.3% were late. The proportions of incorrect bookings were highest in the low-risk finding (66.1%) and history of CRC (67.6%) groups. For the 186 patients requiring a 3-year surveillance interval, 38.7% were booked incorrectly. For the 197 patients requiring a 5-year surveillance interval, 63.5% were booked incorrectly, of which 99.2% were early. More 5-year surveillance interval patients were booked at 3 years (n = 79), than at the correct interval of 5 years (n = 72).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy is poor. The majority of deviations represent early follow-up, which is most common among patients with low-risk findings or history of CRC. There is a tendency towards 3-year surveillance among low-risk patients.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is Colonoscopy the Best Option?

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Prospective studies demonstrate that colorectal cancer screening reduces incidence and mortality, but uptake remains suboptimal. More than a third of age-eligible Americans are not up to date on screening. There are several available screening tests, which may cause primary care providers to ponder which is the best test. This article provides an overview of the available test options and the evidence for each; a summary of major guidelines; and a comparison of the two most widely used tests, colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing.

Is the patient activation measure associated with adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but these can be reduced significantly with population screening using annual fecal occult blood tests (FOBT)A positive FOBT requires timely follow-up with colonoscopy to maximize screening benefits.. Several barriers to follow-up have been identified, with patient health behaviors and choices comprising a significant part of these. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) assesses knowledge, skills, beliefs, and confidence in managing health. Increased patient activation is related to positive health outcomes. The aim of this study is to examine the association between patient empowerment, as reflected in the PAM, and follow-up colonoscopy within 90 days of a positive FOBT result.

METHODS

This case-control study included 429 patients with a positive FOBT, 174 who had a colonoscopy within 90 days, and 255 who did not.. Participants completed a PAM telephone questionnaire (Cronbach's α = 0.785). We used both univariate and multivariate analyses to examine the effect of the PAM score as on the likelihood of undergoing colonoscopy, after adjusting for the independent variables.

RESULTS

In this study we did not find a significant association between PAM and adherence to colonoscopy, using both univariate and multivariate analyses (p = .334 and p = .697, whether PAM was defined as a continuous or as categorical, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to examine the association between patient empowerment, as reflected in the patient activation measure, and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive FOBT. The findings did not support such an association. Further examination is required to clarify the relation between patient empowerment and activation and personal healthcare in general, and in the Israeli population in particular. Future policy should include specific, technical interventions to improve FOBT follow-up among all groups, until the patient-related barriers are better understood.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02534142 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02534142.

Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

National guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

The analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent.

RESULTS

Of all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate ≥20%.

CONCLUSIONS

In 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.

Appropriateness and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: A 5-year follow-up population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are few prospective data about the use of surveillance colonoscopy and the risk of recurrent neoplasia in first degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We examined the use and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in a population-based screening program (Trentino, Italy) METHODS: 1252 FDRs have been included in this study. We calculated compliance (percentage of FDRs who underwent surveillance colonoscopy among those eligible), appropriateness of colonoscopy (appropriate if performed within 6 months of the guidelines recommended interval) and diagnostic yield for neoplasia. We compared these data with those of 765 individuals without a family history (FH) of CRC who underwent screening colonoscopy in the same period (controls).

RESULTS

Compliance and appropriateness were higher in FDRs than in controls (93.0% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001; 59.6% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.0001, respectively). Younger age, female sex, FH of CRC and both non-advanced adenomas (nAA) and advanced adenomas (AA) at screening colonoscopy were predictors of appropriate surveillance. The cumulative incidence of nAA and AA was similar in FDRs and controls (31.7% and 4.9% in FDRs, including three invasive cancers; 32.4% and 5.8% in controls, respectively).

CONCLUSION

FH does not increase the risk of AA in a 5-year follow-up; appropriate surveillance practices in FDRs could be highly expected in an organized screening program.

Less Is More: A Minimalist Approach to Endoscopy

A substantial literature documents inappropriate usage of gastrointestinal endoscopy in a variety of clinical settings. Overusage of endoscopy appears to be common, and 30% or more of procedures performed in some clinical settings have questionable indications. The potential reasons for overuse of endoscopy are multiple, and include cancer phobia, fear of medical malpractice litigation, profit motive, the investigation of "incidentalomas" found on other imaging, and underappreciation of the delayed harms of endoscopy, among other reasons. Clinical guidelines, which should limit overuse of endoscopy, may instead serve to promote it, if authors opt to be "conservative," recommending endoscopy in situations of unclear utility. Several strategies may decrease overuse of endoscopy, including careful attention to risk stratification when choosing patients to screen, adherence to guidelines for surveillance intervals for colonoscopy, the use of quality indicators to identify outliers in endoscopy utilization, and education on appropriate indications and the risks of overuse at the medical student, residency, and fellowship levels.

Geographic variation in the provider of screening colonoscopy in Canada: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal carcinoma is provided by several specialties. Few studies have assessed geographic variation in the delivery of this care. Our objective was to investigate how geographic and socioeconomic factors affect who provides screening colonoscopy in Canada.

METHODS

This was a population-based cohort of all screening colonoscopy procedures performed at publicly funded Canadian health care facilities (excluding those in Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of colonoscopy procedures performed by surgeons versus gastroenterologists at the neighbourhood level. Predictors of interest included socioeconomic and geographic variables. We used spatial analysis to evaluate significant clustering of practitioner services and multinomial logistic regression to model predictors.

RESULTS

We identified 658 113 screening colonoscopy procedures performed by 1886 providers (1169 surgeons and 717 gastroenterologists) over the study period, of which 353 165 (53.7%) were performed by surgeons. A total of 24.2% of neighbourhoods were located within clusters predominantly served by gastroenterologists, and 19.5% were within surgeon clusters; the remainder were in mixed clusters. Rural neighbourhoods had a significantly increased relative risk of being within a surgeon cluster (relative risk [RR] 5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.48-8.01) compared to mixed clusters and nearly 100 times higher relative risk of being in a surgeon cluster compared to gastroenterologist clusters (RR 98.95, 95% CI 15.3-427.2). Neighbourhoods with the highest socioeconomic status were 1.74 (95% CI 1.14-2.56) times likelier to be in gastroenterologist clusters than in mixed clusters.

INTERPRETATION

Surgeons provide a large proportion of colonoscopy procedures in Canada and are essential for access to care, particularly in rural regions. Most Canadians are served relatively equally by surgeons and gastroenterologists. This emphasizes the importance of both specialties to the delivery of colonoscopy care across the country.

Colonoscopy overuse in colorectal cancer screening and associated factors in Argentina: a retrospective cohort study

Background

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the overuse of colonoscopy (CC). Our objective was to evaluate the incidence rate and cumulative probability of having a potentially inadequate CC (PI-CC, e.g. a CC that was performed earlier that recommended) and the association between the report of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC report and the probability of having a PI-CC.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of adults 50y/o or older with a complete baseline CC between January 1st and December 31st 2005, without reported lesions or with hyperplastic polyps, based on secondary data extracted from the electronic medical record of the Hospital Italiano of Buenos Aires. The outcome consisted of time until a PI-CC, defined as the time measured between basal colonoscopy and a colonoscopy performed earlier than the inter-screening interval recommended by the USPSTF and the USMSTF.

Results

389 patients were included. The cumulative probability of receiving a PI-CC over 10 years was 0.29 (95% CI 0.241, 0.342). The incidence rate resulted in 30.91 PI-CC per 1000 person-years (95% CI 25.14, 38). The crude analysis of the association between the outcome and the presence of hyperplastic polyps in the baseline CC, showed a statistically significant difference between both groups (log rank, p 0.036). The multivariate analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 1.67 (95% CI 1.02–2.73).

Conclusion

We observed that 3 in every 10 patients treated in our health system received a PI-CC during the first ten consecutive years after a normal complete CC. Furthermore, this could be in part attributed to the presence of a hyperplastic polyp in the baseline CC.

Implementation of an optical diagnosis strategy saves costs and does not impair clinical outcomes of a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 In an optical diagnosis strategy, diminutive polyps that are endoscopically characterized with high confidence are removed without histopathological analysis and distal hyperplastic polyps are left in situ. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of optical diagnosis.

METHODS

 Using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) model, we simulated biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening in individuals aged 55 - 75 years. In this program, we compared an optical diagnosis strategy with current histopathology assessment of all diminutive polyps. Base-case assumptions included 76 % high-confidence predictions and sensitivities of 88 %, 91 %, and 88 % for endoscopically characterizing adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and hyperplastic polyps, respectively. Outcomes were colorectal cancer burden, number of colonoscopies, life-years, and costs.

RESULTS

 Both the histopathology strategy and the optical diagnosis strategy resulted in 21 life-days gained per simulated individual compared with no screening. For optical diagnosis, €6 per individual was saved compared with the current histopathology strategy. These cost savings were related to a 31 % reduction in colonoscopies in which histopathology was needed for diminutive polyps. Projecting these results onto the Netherlands (17 million inhabitants), assuming a fully implemented FIT-based screening program, resulted in an annual undiscounted cost saving of € 1.7 - 2.2 million for optical diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

 Implementation of optical diagnosis in a FIT-based screening program saves costs without decreasing program effectiveness when compared with current histopathology analysis of all diminutive polyps. Further work is required to evaluate how endoscopists participating in a screening program should be trained, audited, and monitored to achieve adequate competence in optical diagnosis.

Outcome by Gender in the Veterans Health Administration Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere Weight Management Program

BACKGROUND

Few evaluations of the Veterans Health Administration Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!) weight management program have assessed 6-month weight change or factors associated with weight change by gender.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis of administrative data from a national sample of veterans in the VA MOVE!

PROGRAM

RESULTS

A total of 62,882 participants were included, 14.6% were women. Compared with men, women were younger (49.6 years [standard deviation, SD, 10.8] vs. 59.3 years [SD, 9.8], p < 0.0001), less likely to be married (34.1% vs. 56.0%, p < 0.0001), and had higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (26.0% vs. 22.4%, p < 0.0001) and depression (49.3% vs. 32.9%, p < 0.001). The mean number of MOVE! visits attended by women was lower than men (5.6 [SD, 5.3] vs. 6.0 [SD, 5.9], p < 0.0001). Women, compared with men, reported lower rates of being able to rely on family or friends (35.7% vs. 40.8%, p < 0.0001). Observed mean percent change in weight for women was -1.5% (SD, 5.2) and for men was -1.9% (SD, 4.8, p < 0.0001). The odds of ≥5% weight loss were no different for women (body-mass index [BMI] >25 kg/m²) compared with men (BMI >25 kg/m²; odds ratio, 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.11; p = 0.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Women veterans lost less weight overall compared with men. There was no difference in the odds of achieving clinically significant weight loss by gender. The majority of women and men enrolled lost <5% weight despite being enrolled in a lifestyle intervention. Future studies should focus on identifying program- and participant-level barriers to weight loss.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension screening of systemic sclerosis patients in clinical practice: an independent chart review

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at increased risk of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Guidelines recommend annual screening with pulmonary function testing (PFT) and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Through auditing the charts of 11 rheumatologists associated with McMaster University, we evaluated the proportion of SSc patients without PAH or pulmonary fibrosis who receive annual TTE, PFT, and dyspnea screening. Screening rates between self-identified SSc experts and non-experts were compared. In cases where screening tests were abnormal, charts were reviewed for evidence of cardiologist or respirologist referral. In total, 136 patients’ charts were included. Annual screening for dyspnea was very common (88% of patients, 119/134). Annual PAH screening via TTE (74%, 100/135) and PFT (79%, 107/136) was less common. Annual dyspnea screening, TTE, and PFT were more commonly performed by SSc experts than by non-experts (94% vs. 83%, p = 0.03; 85% vs. 61%, p = 0.002; 93% vs. 62%, p<0.001, respectively). Nearly all patients with an abnormal TTE (10/11, 91%) and PFT (12/14, 86%) received appropriate referrals. Future research should explore reasons for differences in screening rates between SSc experts and non-experts. Given that rheumatologists screen for dyspnea more often than they order PFT and TTE, there may be barriers to ordering these tests that warrant further investigation.

Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

Risk factors of nonadherence to colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and its impact on clinical outcomes: a KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND

An optimal surveillance program is important to prevent advanced colorectal neoplasm. In this context, we have evaluated the cumulative risk of high-risk adenoma (HRA) or colorectal cancer (CRC) according to surveillance interval time after polypectomy. In addition, we assessed risk factors for late surveillance to determine whether late surveillance can impact the risk of subsequent advanced colorectal neoplasm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study involving 3562 subjects who had undergone removal of at least one adenoma at the index colonoscopy and who subsequently underwent a surveillance colonoscopy. The subjects were classified into an early, appropriate or late group depending on the timing of the surveillance colonoscopy, performed using modified U.S.

RESULTS

With 3% of the study population with LRA and HRA at the index colonoscopy going on to develop HRA or CRC, the estimated surveillance intervals calculated would be 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.42-7.10] years and 3.1 (95% CI 2.61-4.45) years, respectively. The predictors of late surveillance were female gender [odd ratio (OR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.40], having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.36-2.72) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.19-1.59). The risk factors for subsequent HRA or CRC were late surveillance (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.03-1.74), male gender (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.54-2.95), having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.11-2.40) and HRA at index colonoscopy (OR 2.60; 95% CI 2.04-3.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Women, having undergone the procedure in small-to-medium-sized cities and the presence of an HRA at the index colonoscopy were found to be independent risk factors for late surveillance colonoscopy. Late surveillance is significantly predictive of subsequent HRA or CRC.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations.

METHODS

We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) incidence is the criterion standard benchmark for measuring the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines are designed to minimize iCRC cases. Our aims were to describe characteristics of iCRC patients and to assess whether development of iCRC is related to colonoscopy surveillance guideline intervals.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of postcolonoscopy iCRC cases in a large healthcare system. Guideline-based colonoscopy intervals were calculated based on the 2012 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force for Colorectal Cancer colonoscopy surveillance guidelines. Backward stepwise linear regression was used to determine predictors of iCRC before guideline-recommended follow-up intervals.

RESULTS

We identified 245 iCRC cases (mean age, 69.4 years; 56.3% male) out of 5345 colon cancers evaluated for a prevalence of 4.60%. On index colonoscopy, 75.1% had an adequate preparation, 93.0% reached the cecum, and 52.5% had polyps. iCRC developed before the guideline-recommended interval in 59.1% of patients (94/159). Independent predictive factors of this finding were inadequate preparation (OR, .012; 95% CI, .003-.06; P < .0001) and ≥3 polyps on index colonoscopy (OR, .2; 95% CI, .078-.52; P = .0009). An endoscopist-recommended follow-up interval past the guideline-recommended interval was seen in 23.9% of cases (38/159). Most (34/38, 89.5%) of these iCRCs had inadequate preparation and were diagnosed after the guideline-based follow-up interval.

CONCLUSIONS

Current colonoscopy surveillance guidelines may be inadequate to prevent many iCRC cases. Physician noncompliance with guideline-based surveillance intervals may increase in iCRC cases, especially in patients with an initially inadequate bowel preparation.

Screening for colorectal cancer

This review will comprise a general overview of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We will cover the impact of CRC, CRC risk factors, screening modalities, and guideline recommendations for screening in average-risk and high-risk individuals. Based on this data, we will summarize our approach to CRC screening.