Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

Differences between men and women with respect to colorectal cancer mortality despite screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Women aged 55 to 59 years have a similar prevalence rate and number needed to screen for colorectal adenomas as men at a 10-year younger age. The aim of this study was to determine sex-specific differences in colorectal cancer mortality and estimate the association with adenomas at screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 323,139 individuals who underwent colonoscopy within a national colorectal cancer screening program in Austria between January 2007 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 60 years (interquartile range, 54-67), and the sex distribution in all age groups was nearly identical. Men had significantly higher odds of having an adenoma or serrated polyp, low-risk polyp, high-risk polyp, or colorectal cancer detected at colonoscopy than women (odds ratio [OR] 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-1.86; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.44-1.49; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.69-1.80; and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.70-2.05, respectively). Strikingly, male sex, when compared with female sex, was associated with an almost 2-fold (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.67) increased risk to die from colorectal cancer when an adenoma or serrated polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy and a 4-fold (hazard ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.72-6.3) increased risk when a high-risk polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence for death of colorectal cancer for 60-year-old individuals was 8.5-fold higher in men as compared with women. Markedly, this sex gap narrowed with increasing age, whereas the difference in deaths of other causes remained similar in all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings strengthen the necessity of sex-specific screening recommendations. Importantly, further prospective studies should focus on sex differences in tumor biology to propose personalized surveillance guidelines.

The Effect of Informing Patients Who Will Undergo a Colonoscopy via Short Messaging Service on the Procedure Quality and Satisfaction: An Endoscopist-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The present research was carried out to determine the impact of informing patients who would undergo a colonoscopy via short messaging service (SMS) on the procedure quality and satisfaction.

DESIGN

The study was designed as a randomized controlled experimental and single-blind.

METHODS

The study was completed with 170 patients (87 in the control group and 83 in the intervention group). Verbal and written information about bowel preparation was provided to all patients at the first appointment. Additionally, a total of nine informative SMS, including the time of colonoscopy, dietary restrictions to be followed, purgative drugs to be used, and the time of taking the drugs, were sent to the patients in the intervention group starting 2 days before the procedure. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and postcolonoscopy follow-up form.

FINDINGS

The mean score of each colon segment and the total BBPS mean score of the patients in the intervention group were higher compared to the control group, and the difference between them was statistically significant. The percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the intervention group (84.3%) in comparison with the control group (71.3%). The intervention group had high compliance with a clear diet, enema application, and oral medication intake (P < .05). The cecum was reached in 85.5% of the intervention group. The majority of the patients (89.2%) in the intervention group reported that the information provided via SMS was adequate, and 91.6% were satisfied with the information provided by SMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that, in addition to written and verbal information provided before colonoscopy, SMS information positively impacts the quality of patients' bowel preparation, increases their compliance with the preparation instructions, the rate of reaching the cecum, and their satisfaction. Patient education with this practice can help ensure adequate bowel preparation quality and increase patient comfort in the colonoscopy procedure.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers.

METHODS

Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Serum DNA methylome of the colorectal cancer serrated pathway enables non-invasive detection

The clinical relevance of the colorectal cancer serrated pathway is evident, but the screening of serrated lesions remains challenging. We aimed to characterize the serum methylome of the serrated pathway and to evaluate circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylomes as a potential source of biomarkers for the non-invasive detection of serrated lesions. We collected serum samples from individuals with serrated adenocarcinoma (SAC), traditional serrated adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, hyperplastic polyps and individuals with no colorectal findings. First, we quantified cfDNA methylation with the MethylationEPIC array. Then, we compared the methylation profiles with tissue and serum datasets. Finally, we evaluated the utility of serum cfDNA methylation biomarkers. We identified a differential methylation profile able to distinguish high-risk serrated lesions from no serrated neoplasia, showing concordance with tissue methylation from SAC and sessile serrated lesions. Serum methylation profiles are pathway-specific, clearly separating serrated lesions from conventional adenomas. The combination of ninjurin 2 (NINJ2) and glutamate-rich 1 (ERICH1) methylation discriminated high-risk serrated lesions and SAC with 91.4% sensitivity (64.4% specificity), while zinc finger protein 718 (ZNF718) methylation reported 100% sensitivity for the detection of SAC (96% specificity). This is the first study exploring the serum methylome of serrated lesions. Differential methylation of cfDNA can be used for the non-invasive detection of colorectal serrated lesions.

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study)

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

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

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

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Evaluation of Blood Soluble CD26 as a Complementary Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Fecal hemoglobin immunodetection (FIT) in combination with endoscopy has been implemented to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), although there are issues that can be improved in relation to participation rates. We studied whether the blood biomarker soluble-CD26 (sCD26), related at least in part to the immune system and inflammation, and/or its dipeptidyl peptidase enzyme activity (DPP4), could help reduce false positives. In a cohort of 1703 individuals who underwent colonoscopy and had a serum sample, sCD26 and DPP4 activity showed statistically significant differences regarding sex and age. According to the colonoscopy findings, sCD26 and DPP4 activity progressively decreased in advanced adenomas and CRC, with statistically significant differences, even between both groups; 918 of them had a FIT result (n = 596 positive cases) with approximately 70% of these (n = 412) false positives. With cut-offs of 440 ng/mL for sCD26, 42 mU/mL for DPP4, and 11 ng/mU for their ratio, the combined information of the three biomarkers (at least positive for one biomarker) identified almost all advanced adenomas and CRC cases in the FIT cohort with approximately half of the false positives compared to FIT. A sequential testing strategy with FIT and our blood biomarker test is proposed.

Impact of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2020 guidelines on the number of scheduled post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies: Meeting presentations: Partial results of this research were published in abstract form at ESGE Days 2020

Background and study aims  In contrast with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2013 and the US Multi-society Task Force (USMSTF) 2020 guidelines, the ESGE 2020 guideline considers patients with three to four adenomas < 10 mm or an adenoma with villous histology as low risk. The aim of this study was to quantify the influence of the application of the new ESGE 2020 guidelines, as opposed to the ESGE 2013 and USMSTF 2020 guidelines, on the number of scheduled colonoscopies, and to describe the main causes for changes in the surveillance intervals. Patients and methods  A retrospective evaluation was conducted of a prospectively maintained fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based regional colorectal cancer screening program database. Surveillance regimens following ESGE 2020, ESGE 2013, and USMSTF 2020 guidelines were compared. Results  Overall, 1284 individuals with a positive FIT and undergoing colonoscopy were consecutively included. When applying the ESGE 2020 guidelines, 10.8 % of patients changed to a "no-surveillance" group (relative reduction in colonoscopies of 82.5 %). The main reason for these changes was considering three to four adenomas as low risk. The proportion of patients from the "3-year surveillance" group who moved to the "no-surveillance" group was lower when a sessile serrated lesion (SSL) was present (ESGE 2013, 32.0% vs 16.3 %; USMSTF 2020 17.2 % vs 6.8 %). Analyzing the 41 patients with SSLs who remained unchanged in the "no-surveillance" group, only in 15 (36.6 %) the cause was the presence of an SSL. Conclusions  applying the new ESGE 2020 guidelines could reduce by 11 % the proportion of individuals being offered surveillance. SLLs have not a major influence on the change of surveillance intervals.

A Novel Convolutional Neural Network Model as an Alternative Approach to Bowel Preparation Evaluation Before Colonoscopy in the COVID-19 Era: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Adequate bowel preparation is key to a successful colonoscopy, which is necessary for detecting adenomas and preventing colorectal cancer. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) platform using a convolutional neural network (CNN) model (AI-CNN model) to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a colonoscopist-blinded, randomized study. Enrolled patients were randomized into an experimental group, in which our AI-CNN model was used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation (AI-CNN group), or a control group, which performed self-evaluation per routine practice (control group). The primary outcome was the consistency (homogeneity) between the results of the 2 methods. The secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1,434 patients were enrolled (AI-CNN, n = 730; control, n = 704). No significant difference was observed between the evaluation results ("pass" or "not pass") of the groups in the adequacy of bowel preparation as represented by BBPS scores. The mean BBPS scores, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate were similar between the groups. These results indicated that the AI-CNN model and routine practice were generally consistent in the evaluation of bowel preparation quality. However, the mean BBPS score of patients with "pass" results were significantly higher in the AI-CNN group than in the control group, indicating that the AI-CNN model may further improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients exhibiting adequate bowel preparation.

DISCUSSION

The novel AI-CNN model, which demonstrated comparable outcomes to the routine practice, may serve as an alternative approach for evaluating bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy.

Pooled rates of adenoma detection by colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk individuals with positive fecal immunochemical test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopy in individuals positive for a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are ≥45% in men and ≥35% in women. These are based on weak, low-quality evidence. We performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the pooled ADR in FIT-positive colonoscopy.

METHODS

Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in October 2021 for studies reporting on ADR of colonoscopy in a FIT-positive population. Meta-analysis was performed by standard methodology using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² and 95% prediction interval statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four high-quality studies that included more than 6 million asymptomatic average-risk individuals were analyzed; 2,655,345 individuals completed a screening FIT test. The pooled FIT screening rate was 69.8% (95% CI, 62.8-76.1), the pooled FIT positivity rate was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3-6.9), and the colonoscopy completion rate was 85% (95% CI, 82.8-86.9). The pooled ADR was 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6), pooled advanced ADR was 25.3% (95% CI, 22-29), and the pooled colorectal cancer detection rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 4.4-5.9). The pooled ADR in men was 58.3% (95% CI, 52.8-63.6) and in women was 41.9% (95% CI, 36.4-47.6). The pooled ADR with qualitative FIT assessment was 67.7% (95% CI, 50.7-81), with 1-stool sample FIT was 52.8% (95% CI, 48.8-56.8), and at a cutoff threshold of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL was 52.1% (95% CI, 47-57.1). Based on time-period cumulative analysis, the ADR improved over time from 30.5% (95% CI, 24.6-37.2) to 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports the current ADR benchmarks for colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals. Excellent pooled ADR parameters were demonstrated with qualitative assessment of 1 stool sample at a test cutoff value of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL, and ADR per endoscopist improved over time.

Quality measures in endoscopy: A systematic analysis of the overall scientific level of evidence and conflicts of interest

Background and study aims  Quality measures were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in endoscopy exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating quality measures in endoscopy. Methods  A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until November 15, 2020, to examine the quality measures proposed by all major societies. Quality measures were assessed for their level of quality evidence and categorized as category A (guideline-based), category B (observational studies) or category C (expert opinion). They were also examined for the type of measure (process, structure, outcome), the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest (COI), and patient participation of the quality measure. Results  An aggregate total of 214 quality measures from nine societies (15 manuscripts) were included and analyzed. Of quality measures in endoscopy, 71.5 %, 23.8 %, and 4.7 % were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different ( P  = 0.028). Of quality measures, 76 % were quantifiable, 18 % contained patient-centric outcomes, and 7 % reported outcome measures. None of the organizations reported on patient involvement or external review, six disclosed existing COI, and 40 % were published more than 5 years ago. Conclusions  Quality measures are important to standardize clinical practice. Because over 70 % of quality measures in endoscopy are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality to effectively set a standard, reduce variation, and improve care in endoscopic practice.

Rectal Evacuation Disorders are Associated With Poor Bowel Preparation in Patients With Chronic Constipation: Results From Two Centers

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated factors that can predict the adequacy of bowel preparation in patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients with chronic constipation who underwent anorectal manometry and at least 1 colonoscopy at 2 tertiary referral centers from 2003 to 2019. We also identified a subgroup of patients who underwent colonic transit testing through radiopaque marker testing. We determined demographic, medical, and constipation-related factors associated with poor bowel preparation and their effect on standardized quality metrics using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 274 patients with chronic constipation who underwent anorectal manometry testing. Both outlet dysfunction (prolonged balloon expulsion) and slow-transit constipation were associated with suboptimal bowel preparation. Outlet dysfunction was also associated with decreased cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and sessile serrated polyp detection rates. In multivariable analyses controlling for demographics and known factors associated with poor bowel preparation, outlet dysfunction was associated with an almost 3-fold odds of suboptimal bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR): 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.1] and a 3-fold reduction in cecal intubation rates (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.8). Among those with radiopaque marker colonic transit testing available, slow-transit constipation was associated with a >2-fold odds of suboptimal bowel preparation (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a cohort of patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy, outlet dysfunction was associated with suboptimal bowel preparation and other quality metrics. Constipated patients with a rectal evacuation disorder may represent a subgroup of patients that could benefit from individualized strategies for better bowel preparation.

Impact of a colorectal cancer screening program implantation on delays and prognosis of non-screening detected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The implementation of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme may increase the awareness of Primary Care Physicians, reduce the diagnostic delay in CRC detected outside the scope of the screening programme and thus improve prognosis.

AIM

To determine the effect of implementation of a CRC screening programme on diagnostic delays and prognosis of CRC detected outside the scope of a screening programme.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective intervention study with a pre-post design. We identified 322 patients with incident and confirmed CRC in the pre-implantation cohort (June 2014 – May 2015) and 285 in the post-implantation cohort (June 2017 - May 2018) in the Cancer Registry detected outside the scope of a CRC screening programme. In each patient we calculated the different healthcare diagnostics delays: global, primary and secondary healthcare, referral and colonoscopy-related delays. In addition, we collected the initial healthcare that evaluated the patient, the home location (urban/rural), and the CRC stage at diagnosis. We determined the two-year survival and we performed a multivariate proportional hazard regression analysis to determine the variables associated with survival.

RESULTS

We did not detect any differences in the patient or CRC baseline-related variables. A total of 20.1% of patients was detected with metastatic disease. There was a significant increase in direct referral to colonoscopy from primary healthcare (25.5%, 35.8%; P = 0.04) in the post-implantation cohort. Diagnostic delay was reduced by 24 d (106.64 ± 148.84 days, 82.84 ± 109.31 d; P = 0.02) due to the reduction in secondary healthcare delay (46.01 ± 111.65 d; 29.20 ± 60.83 d; P = 0.02). However, we did not find any differences in CRC stage at diagnosis or in two-year survival (70.3%; P = 0.9). Variables independently associated with two-year risk of death were age (Hazard Ratio-HR: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07), CRC stage (II HR: 2.17, 95%CI: 1.07-4.40; III HR: 3.07, 95%CI: 1.56-6.08; IV HR: 19.22, 95%CI: 9.86-37.44; unknown HR: 9.24, 95%CI: 4.27-19.99), initial healthcare consultation (secondary HR: 2.93, 95%CI: 1.01-8.55; emergency department HR: 2.06, 95%CI: 0.67-6.34), hospitalization during the diagnostic process (HR: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.17-2.38) and urban residence (HR: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.06-1.98).

CONCLUSION

Although implementation of a CRC screening programme can reduce diagnostic delays for CRC detected in symptomatic patients, this has no effect on CRC stage or survival.

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

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

Association of Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Characteristics With Colorectal Cancer Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and characteristics of previously resected adenomas are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the combined effect of both factors on CRC mortality is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using data of the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy, we evaluated the combined effect of ADR and lesion characteristics on subsequent risk for CRC mortality. We analyzed mortality rates for individuals with low-risk adenomas (1-2 adenomas <10 mm), individuals with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or ≥3 adenomas), and after negative colonoscopy (negative colonoscopy or small hyperplastic polyps) performed by endoscopists with an ADR <25% compared with ≥25%. Cox regression was used to determine the association of combined risk groups with CRC mortality, adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

We evaluated 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. A total of 165 CRC-related deaths occurred during the follow-up period, up to 12.2 years. In all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher when colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25%. Compared with negative colonoscopy with an ADR ≥25%, CRC mortality was similar for individuals with low-risk adenomas irrespective of ADR (for ADR ≥25%: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.49; for ADR <25%: adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.43) and after negative colonoscopy with ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.81-2.00). Individuals with high-risk adenomas were at significantly higher risk for CRC death if colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.18-4.31) but not if performed by an endoscopist with an ADR ≥25% (adjusted HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.61-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study adds important evidence for mandatory assessment and monitoring of performance quality in screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower risk for CRC death, and the impact of ADR was strongest for individuals with high-risk adenomas.

Overtreatment in nonmalignant lesions detected in a colorectal cancer screening program: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs reduce CRC incidence and mortality, they are associated with risks in healthy subjects. However, the risk of overtreatment and overdiagnosis has not been determined yet. The aim of this study was to report the surgery rates in patients with nonmalignant lesions detected within the first round of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) based CRC screening program and the factors associated with it.

Methods

We included in this analysis all patients with nonmalignant lesions detected between May 2013 and June 2019 in the Galician (Spain) CRC screening program. We calculated surgery rate according to demographic variables, the risk classification according to the colonoscopy findings (European guidelines for quality assurance), the endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate (ADR) classified into quartiles and the hospital’s complexity level. We determined which variables were independently associated with surgery rate and expressed the association as Odds Ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We included 15,707 patients in the analysis with high (19.9%), intermediate (26.9%) low risk (23.3%) adenomas and normal colonoscopy (29.9%) detected in the analyzed period. Colorectal surgery was performed in 162 patients (1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.19), due to colonoscopy complications (0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05) and resection of colorectal benign lesions (1.00, 95% CI 0.85–1.16). Median hospital stay was 6 days with 17.3% patients developing minor complications, 7.4% major complications and one death. After discharge, complications developed in 18.4% patients. In benign lesions, an endoscopic resection was performed in 25.4% and a residual premalignant lesion was detected in 89.9%. The variables independently associated with surgery in the multivariable analysis were age (≥60 years = 1.57, 95% CI 1.11–2.23), sex (female = 2.10, 95% CI 1.52–2.91), the European guidelines classification (high risk = 67.94, 95% CI 24.87–185.59; intermediate risk = 5.63, 95% CI 1.89–16.80; low risk = 1.43; 95% CI 0.36–5.75), the endoscopist’s ADR (Q4 = 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.68; Q3 = 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.71; Q2 = 0.71, 95% CI 0.44–1.14) and the hospital (tertiary = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.79).

Conclusions

In a CRC screening program, the surgery rate and the associated complications in patients with nonmalignant lesions are low, and related to age, sex, endoscopic findings, endoscopist’s ADR and the hospital’s complexity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08606-w.

Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors

OBJECTIVE

Postscreening colorectal cancer (PSCRC) after screening colonoscopy is associated with endoscopists' performance and characteristics of resected lesions. Prior studies have shown that adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a decisive factor for PSCRC, but correlations with other parameters need further analysis and ADR may change over time.

DESIGN

Cohort study including individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy between 1/2008 and 12/2019 performed by physicians participating in a quality assurance programme in Austria. Data were linked with hospitalisation data for the diagnosis of PSCRC (defined as CRC diagnosis >6 months after colonoscopy). ADR was defined dynamically in relation to the time point of subsequent colonoscopies; high-risk groups of patients were those with an adenoma ≥10 mm, or with high-grade dysplasia, or villous or tubulovillous histology, or a serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, or colonoscopies with ≥3 lesions. Main outcome was PSCRC for each risk group (negative colonoscopy, hyperplastic polyps, low-risk and high-risk group of patients) after colonoscopy by endoscopists with an ADR <20% compared with endoscopists with an ADR ≥20%.

RESULTS

352 685 individuals were included in the study (51.0% women, median age 60 years) of which 10.5% were classified as high-risk group. During a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 241 (0.06%) PSCRC were identified; of 387 participating physicians, 19.6% had at least one PSCRC (8.4% two or more). While higher endoscopist ADR decreased PSCRC incidence (HR per 1% increase 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98), affiliation to the high-risk group of patients was also associated with higher PSCRC incidence (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36 to 4.00). Similar correlations were seen with regards to high-risk, and advanced adenomas. The risk for PSCRC was significantly higher after colonoscopy by an endoscopist with an ADR <20% as compared with an endoscopist with an ADR ≥20% in patients after negative colonoscopy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.0, p<0.001) and for the high-risk group of patients (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.22, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

A dynamic calculation of the ADR takes into account changes over time but confirms the correlation of ADR and interval cancer. Both lesion characteristics and endoscopists ADR may play a similar role for the risk of PSCRC. This should be considered in deciding about appropriate surveillance intervals in the future.

Real-World National Colonoscopy Volume in Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study over 12 Years

Background/Aims

Little is known about the national colonoscopy volume in Asian countries. This study aimed to assess the national colonoscopy volume in Korea over a 12-year period on the basis of a nationwide population-based database.

Methods

We conducted a population-based study for colonoscopy claims (14,511,158 colonoscopies performed on 13,219,781 patients) on the basis of the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from 2002 to 2013. The 12-year national colonoscopy burden was analyzed according to patient age, patient sex, and healthcare facility type.

Results

The overall volume of colonoscopy increased 8-fold over the 12-year period. The annual colonoscopic polypectomy rate significantly increased in all patient sex and age groups over the 12-years period (all p<0.001). The yearly colonoscopic polypectomy rate for men was significantly increased compared with that for women (2.3% vs 1.7%, p<0.001) and for the screening-age group compared with that for the young-age group (2.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.001). The yearly colonoscopic polypectomy rate relative to the total colonoscopy volume significantly increased in primary, secondary, and tertiary facilities by 2.4%, 1.9%, and 1.4% during the 12-year period (all p<0.001). In addition, the annual colonoscopy volume covered by high-volume facilities significantly increased by 1.8% in primary healthcare facilities over the 12-year period (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Healthcare resources should be prioritized to allow adequate colonoscopic capacity, especially for men, individuals in the screening-age group, and at primary healthcare facilities. Cost-effective strategies to improve the quality of colonoscopy may focus on primary healthcare facilities and high-volume facilities in Korea.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI).

Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP.

Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI−7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI−3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found.

Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489).

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

PET/CT Integrated With CT Colonography in Preoperative Obstructive Colorectal Cancer by Incomplete Optical Colonoscopy: A Prospective Study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate if integrating whole-body PET/CT with CT colonography (PET/CTC) improves the preoperative diagnosis of obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

We prospectively included 47 consecutive patients (18 women and 29 men; mean age, 71 ± 14 years) suspected of having CRC by optical colonoscopy, which was not completed due to obstructive masses. To perform PET/CTC, a small caliber Foley catheter was inserted to distend the colon with CO2 insufflations. Polyps measuring 10 mm or larger were considered as high risk of malignancy. All findings were histologically confirmed.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer was localized in the sigmoid (n = 21), rectum (n = 7), rectosigmoid junction (n = 5), ascending (n = 7), descending (n = 5), and transverse (n = 2) colon. All tumors showed FDG uptake (mean ± SD SUVmax, 20.02 ± 9.9) including one synchronic tumor (SUVmax, 10.46). Forty-seven polyps were histologically confirmed as smaller than 10 mm (n = 35) and 10 mm or larger (n = 12). All 12 polyps 10 mm or larger showed FDG uptake (SUVmax range, 3.08-19.5), but only one smaller than 10 mm could be identified by PET. Pathological lymph nodes were diagnosed in 17/47 cases after surgical removal with a sensitivity and specificity for CTC and PET/CTC of 71% and 97% and 59% and 100%, respectively. Liver metastases were confirmed in 9 patients and in 4/9 along with lung metastases (n = 2) or implants (n = 2), showing a sensitivity and specificity for CTC of 89% and 100% and both 100% for PET/CTC.

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CTC is a reliable technique for staging CRC and diagnosing synchronous tumors. In this series, PET/CTC was not able to identify small polyps but showed potential use for ruling out 10 mm or larger polyps at high risk of malignancy.

Predictive Value of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Symptomatic Patients without Colorectal Cancer: A Post-Hoc Analysis within the COLONPREDICT Cohort

We aimed to assess the risk of cancer in patients with abdominal symptoms after a complete colonoscopy without colorectal cancer (CRC), according to the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration, as well as its diagnostic accuracy. For this purpose, we performed a post-hoc analysis within a cohort of 1431 patients from the COLONPREDICT study, prospectively designed to assess the fecal immunochemical test accuracy in detecting CRC. Over 36.5 ± 8.4 months, cancer was detected in 115 (8%) patients. Patients with CEA values higher than 3 ng/mL revealed an increased risk of cancer (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.1), CRC (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.1-17.7) and non-gastrointestinal cancer (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.8). A new malignancy was detected in 51 (3.6%) patients during the first year and three variables were independently associated: anemia (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-5.8), rectal bleeding (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7) and CEA level >3 ng/mL (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-7.1). However, CEA was increased only in 31.8% (95% CI, 16.4-52.7%) and 50% (95% CI, 25.4-74.6%) of patients with and without anemia, respectively, who would be diagnosed with cancer during the first year of follow-up. On the basis of this information, CEA should not be used to assist in the triage of patients presenting with lower bowel symptoms who have recently been ruled out a CRC.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

pT1 Colorectal Cancer Detected in a Colorectal Cancer Mass Screening Program: Treatment and Factors Associated with Residual and Extraluminal Disease

Simple Summary

Our study has evaluated the burden of pT1 CRC (confined to submucosa) detected during the first round of a CRC screening program, the surgery related complications and the factors related to four relevant outcomes: initial endoscopic resection, surgery rescue and residual disease after endoscopic resection and, finally, extraluminal disease after surgical resection. 38% of the CRC were detected in this stage.74.9% were initially resected endoscopically and 43.8% did not require surgery. There were inhospital surgical complications in 30.7%, mainly mild with no death and complications after discharge in 16.3% of the patients Residual disease was detected in 12 (4.3%) after endoscopic resection and extraluminal disease in 18 (8.6%) patients after surgery. We have determined several variables independently associated with the four outcome variables evaluated.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to describe the treatment of pT1 colorectal cancer (CRC) in a mass screening program, the surgery-related complications and the factors associated with residual disease after endoscopic resection and extraluminal disease after surgery. We included in this retrospective analysis all the pT1 CRC detected in the Galician CRC screening program between May 2013 and June 2019. We determined which variables were independently associated with the outcomes of the study through a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We included 370–354 pT1 N0(X), 16 pT1N1- out of the 971 CRC detected; 277 (74.9%) were resected endoscopically and 162 (43.8%) were not referred to surgery. There were surgical complications in 30.7% and 16.3% of the patients during hospitalization and after discharge. Residual disease was detected in 12 (4.3%) after endoscopic resection and extraluminal disease in 18 (8.6%) patients after surgery. The variables independently associated with initial endoscopic resection were a pedunculated morphology (OR 33.1, 95% CI 4.3–254), a diameter ≥ 20 mm (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.39–11.18) and a Site–Morphology–Size–Access score < 9 (OR 428, 95% CI 42–4263). The variables related with surgery rescue were a piecemeal resection (OR 4.48, 95% CI 1.48–13.6), an infiltrated/nonevaluable resection border (OR 7.44, 95% CI 2.12–26.0), a non-well-differentiated histology (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.07–20.0), vascular infiltration (OR 8.24, 95% CI 2.72–25.0) and a Haggitt 4 infiltration of the submucosa (OR 5.68, 95% CI 2.62–12.3). Residual disease after endoscopic resection was associated with an infiltrated/nonevaluable resection border (OR 34.9, 95% CI 4.08–298), a non-well-differentiated histology (OR 6.67, 95% CI 1.05–50.0), and the vascular infiltration of the submucosa (OR 7.61, 95% CI 1.55–37.4). The variables related with extraluminal disease after surgical resection were no endoscopic resection (OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.26–14.28), a non-well-differentiated histology (OR 4.35, 95% CI 1.39–14.29) and the lymphatic infiltration of the submucosa (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.32–17.8). In a CRC screening program, although most of pT1 CRC are candidates for endoscopic treatment, surgery is a safe procedure. We have defined some easy to evaluate variables that can be used in the decision-making process.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Risk of gastrointestinal cancer in a symptomatic cohort after a complete colonoscopy: Role of faecal immunochemical test

BACKGROUND

Faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been recommended to assess symptomatic patients for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Nevertheless, some conditions could theoretically favour blood originating in proximal areas of the gastrointestinal tract passing through the colon unmetabolized. A positive FIT result could be related to other gastrointestinal cancers (GIC).

AIM

To assess the risk of GIC detection and related death in FIT-positive symptomatic patients (threshold 10 μg Hb/g faeces) without CRC.

METHODS

Post hoc cohort analysis performed within two prospective diagnostic test studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different FIT analytical systems for CRC and significant colonic lesion detection. Ambulatory patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred consecutively for colonoscopy from primary and secondary healthcare, underwent a quantitative FIT before undergoing a complete colonoscopy. Patients without CRC were divided into two groups (positive and negative FIT) using the threshold of 10 μg Hb/g of faeces and data from follow-up were retrieved from electronic medical records of the public hospitals involved in the research. We determined the cumulative risk of GIC, CRC and upper GIC. Hazard rate (HR) was calculated adjusted by age, sex and presence of significant colonic lesion.

RESULTS

We included 2709 patients without CRC and a complete baseline colonoscopy, 730 (26.9%) with FIT ≥ 10 µgr Hb/gr. During a mean time of 45.5 ± 20.0 mo, a GIC was detected in 57 (2.1%) patients: An upper GIC in 35 (1.3%) and a CRC in 14 (0.5%). Thirty-six patients (1.3%) died due to GIC: 22 (0.8%) due to an upper GIC and 9 (0.3%) due to CRC. FIT-positive subjects showed a higher CRC risk (HR 3.8, 95%CI: 1.2-11.9) with no differences in GIC (HR 1.5, 95%CI: 0.8-2.7) or upper GIC risk (HR 1.0, 95%CI: 0.5-2.2). Patients with a positive FIT had only an increased risk of CRC-related death (HR 10.8, 95%CI: 2.1-57.1) and GIC-related death (HR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.1-4.3), with no differences in upper GIC-related death (HR 1.4, 95%CI: 0.6-3.3). An upper GIC was detected in 22 (0.8%) patients during the first year. Two variables were independently associated: anaemia (OR 5.6, 95%CI: 2.2-13.9) and age ≥ 70 years (OR 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-7.0).

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients without CRC have a moderate risk increase in upper GIC, regardless of the FIT result. Patients with a positive FIT have an increased risk of post-colonoscopy CRC.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of a visual educational leaflet on the preparation of colonoscopies in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

the safety and diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopies depends on the quality of colon cleansing. Several factors have been reported that affect the quality of bowel cleansing, hospitalization being one of them.

AIMS

the aim of the study was to investigate whether a visual educational leaflet improved the level of cleanliness achieved in hospitalized patients undergoing a colonoscopy and to identify predictors of a poor bowel preparation.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. The intervention group was given a visual educational leaflet and both groups received four liters of polyethylene glycol solution. Demographic data, personal history, reason for admission and indication for colonoscopy, work shift during which the procedure was performed and endoscopy findings were collected. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the bowel preparation.

RESULTS

one hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the study; 51.5% were male, with a mean age of 64.3 ± 17.6 years. The educational leaflet did not result in a difference in the total BBPS obtained between the standard group and the intervention group (7 [6-9] vs 6 [5.7-9]; p = 0.17). According to the multivariable analysis, the only factors associated with a poor bowel cleansing were heart disease (OR 3.37 [1.34-8.46]; p = 0.010) and colorectal cancer (OR 3.82 [1.26-11.61]; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

the use of a visual educational leaflet for the preparation of colonoscopies did not provide a significant improvement in hospitalized patients in our health area. Heart disease was identified as the only predictor of poor preparation for colonoscopy.

Quality Indicators and Outcome Measures of Endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program

PURPOSE

Quality indicators of the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (NEQIP) and outcome measures of endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) in Korea are not clear. We evaluated the quality indicators of the revised NEQIP and outcome measures of endoscopy at different types of healthcare facilities participating in the NCSP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted between March and August 2018 in primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare facilities that perform endoscopy as a part of the NCSP. Representative endoscopists completed a questionnaire for quality indicators of the NEQIP and provided data on outcome measures for endoscopy.

RESULTS

Quality indicators of the NEQIP were mostly acceptable. However, the quality indicators for annual volume of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, training for endoscopy quality improvement by endoscopy nursing staff, colonoscopy reports, documentation of pathologic lesions, quality of endoscopy reprocessing areas, and completion of endoscopy reprocessing education programs were suboptimal. For outcome measures of EGD, the number of photo-documentations and total procedure time were higher at tertiary healthcare facilities than at other facilities (p<0.001 and p=0.023, respectively). For the outcome measures of colonoscopy, colonoscopy completion rate and waiting times for colonoscopy were significantly higher at tertiary healthcare facilities than at other facilities (both p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Outcome measures of endoscopy should be included as quality indicators of NCSP. However, universal outcome measures for all types of healthcare facilities should be established because performance levels of some outcome measures differ among individual healthcare facility types.

Effect of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl on the overall quality of colonoscopy: a prospective and randomized study

INTRODUCTION

a prospective, randomized study was performed to assess the influence of conscious sedation on the overall quality of colonoscopy, simultaneously quantifying its effect on the scientific quality, perceived quality and patient safety.

METHODS

patients referred for a colonoscopy were included in the study and were randomized to receive or not receive sedation. Demographic data, indication for colonoscopy, cecal intubation, introduction and withdrawal time, resected adenomas and complications during the exploration were collected. Thirty days later, a satisfaction questionnaire was performed (GHAA 9-me) and patients were asked about complications after the examination.

RESULTS

a total of 5,328 patients were included, the average age was 62 ± 15.22 years, 47% were male, 3,734 were sedated and 1,594 were not sedated. The sedated patients had a shorter endoscope insertion time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.019), a higher rate of cecal intubations (96% vs 88%, p < 0.05), longer withdrawal time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.01) and higher adenoma detection rates (22% vs 17%, p < 0.05). The use of sedation reduced discomfort during and after the exploration, without increasing the complications. The satisfaction questionnaire score was higher (23.6 ± 1.5 vs 16.6 ± 4.8, p < 0.001) in the sedated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

superficial sedation not only reduces patient discomfort but also improves the overall quality of the colonoscopy. Therefore, we must consider the use of sedation as an essential part of colonoscopy.

Factors related to the participation and detection of lesions in colorectal cancer screening programme-based faecal immunochemical test

Background

The overall aim of this study was to describe trends in participation rates and detection of lesions in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, during three rounds, using faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

Methods

National registers were used to collect data on invitations for CRC screening in the Basque Country (Spain) from 2009 to 2014. Information about participation, age, gender and lesions in each round were collected.

Results

A total of 961.533 individuals were included in the analysis; respectively, 584.950, 298.143 and 78.440 in the first, second and third rounds. The average participation rate was 68.4% (66.8, 70.4 and 72.3%, respectively by round; P < 0.001) and the positivity rate was 6.3% (7, 5.5 and 5.4%, respectively by round; P < 0.001). The participation rate increased significantly with age and was found to be higher in women versus men. A total of 15.144 advanced adenomas and 2.131 CRCs were diagnosed, leading to a detection rate of 23.9 and 3.4‰, respectively. Regarding gender, men had the highest rates in all periods and rounds. The detection rate of advanced neoplasia was lower in the regular when compared with irregular paricipants.

Conclusions

In a CRC screening, this organization obtained high FIT participation rates. Older participants and women were associated with a higher participation. The detection rate of lesions was higher in men, independent on age and round.

Association of time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal test result and fecal hemoglobin concentration with risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) and colorectal cancer (CRC) according to time to colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), fecal hemoglobin concentration, and combination of both.

METHODS

We analyzed the records of 2362 patients aged ≥50 years who underwent colonoscopy because of a positive FIT result through the National Cancer Screening Program of Korea.

RESULTS

ACRN risk increased with increasing time to colonoscopy after a positive FIT (17.2%, 18.6%, 19.1%, 21.4%, and 27.2% in <30, 30-59, 60-149, 150-179, and ≥180 days; P = 0.034), and ACRN and CRC risk increased with increasing fecal hemoglobin concentration (ACRN, 13.2%, 16.9%, 18.5%, 23.2%, and 26.6%; CRC, 1.3%, 1.7%, 4.7%, 5.7%, and 12.8% with 100-200, 200-300, 300-500, 500-1000, and ≥1000 ng Hb/mL; both P < 0.001). Even after adjusting for confounders, follow-up after 180 days tended to be associated with a higher ACRN risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-3.27), compared with follow-up colonoscopy at <30 days, and fecal hemoglobin 500-1000, and ≥1000 ng Hb/mL were associated with a significantly higher ACRN and CRC risk, compared with 100-200 ng Hb/mL. Moreover, the group with ≥180 days and ≥1000 ng Hb/mL had a much higher CRC risk compared with the group with <180 days and <1000 ng Hb/mL (12.45-fold; 95% CI, 3.73-41.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with positive FIT results, especially those with higher fecal hemoglobin levels, should undergo timely follow-up colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rates in colonoscopies for positive fecal immunochemical tests versus direct screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent guidelines propose higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopies performed for positive results for fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), but this is based on low-quality evidence. We aimed to compare ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in direct screening colonoscopy (DSC) versus FIT-positive colonoscopy (FITC) in a multicenter Asia-Pacific cohort to justify differential targets.

METHODS

Asymptomatic average-risk patients ≥50 years of age who underwent screening colonoscopy directly or as follow-up for positive OC-Sensor FIT results were identified from 8 sites across the Asia-Pacific region. Overall, sex-specific ADR, overall AADR, and overall APC were compared between the 2 screening methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounding by differences in patient characteristics. Linear regression was used to correlate ADR with APC and to propose APC benchmarks.

RESULTS

A total of 2901 (mean age, 60.1 years; 57% men) individuals had DSC, and 2485 (mean age, 62.8 years; 57% men) underwent FITC. Overall ADR (53.6% vs 37.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.93; P < .001), male-specific ADR (61.6% vs 44.6%; OR, 2; P < .001), female-specific ADR (43.2% vs 28.2%; OR, 1.94; P < .001) and overall AADR (29.9% vs 4.9%; OR, 8.2; P < .001) in FITC were significantly higher than the corresponding values for DSC. Differences remained significant after adjustment for patient characteristics. ADR was strongly and positively correlated to APC, with an ADR of 45% and 35% correlating to an APC of ∼1 and ∼0.65.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this international multicenter cohort study provide early evidence that newly proposed higher ADR targets are justified as quality indicators for FITC.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

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

Impact of high-volume, intermediate-volume and low-volume bowel preparation on colonoscopy quality and patient satisfaction: An observational study

Background

Although optimal bowel preparation is essential for high-quality screening colonoscopy, documentation of preparation quality, patient satisfaction and adherence is scarce.

Aim

The aim of this article is to compare low-volume (LV, 300 ml sodium picosulfate), intermediate-volume (IV, 2 l polyethylene glycol, PEG + ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate), and high-volume (HV, 4 l PEG) purgatives.

Results

A total of 5000 individuals (50.5% women) were enrolled between March 2015 and July 2017 (LV:IV:HV = 3.61:1.54:1). Overall sex- and age-adjusted adenoma detection rate was 25.4% (LV 23.8%, IV 25.4%, HV 29.8%), median age was 59.6 years, and cleansing was successful in 96.8%. Success rates of bowel cleansing were highest with HV (97.6%), followed by LV (97.2%) and IV (95.3%) with OR 2.04 (CI 95% 1.20-3.45, p = 0.008) and OR 1.79 (CI 95% 1.27-2.50, p = 0.001), respectively, compared to IV. A total of 93.5% of the LV group would use the same purgative in the future, 73.2% of IV and 69.4% of HV. A total of 84.4% would prefer overnight preparation, 12.1% same-day preparation.

Conclusion

All purgatives investigated showed good bowel cleansing quality results, patient satisfaction and compliance. Improvement in patient information might lead to even higher participation rates in screening colonoscopy since one in five patients stated that bowel preparation worried him or her most prior to colonoscopy.

Quality Metrics of a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Background/Aims

Knowledge regarding the quality metrics of fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening programs is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance and quality metrics of a FIT-based screening program.

Methods

In our screening program, asymptomatic subjects aged ≥50 years underwent an annual FIT, and subjects with positive FIT results underwent a subsequent colonoscopy. The performance of the FIT and colonoscopy was analyzed in individuals with a positive FIT who completed the program between 2009 and 2015 at a university hospital.

Results

Among the 51,439 screened participants, 75.1% completed the FIT. The positive rate was 1.1%, and the colonoscopy completion rate in these patients was 68.6%. The positive predictive values of cancer and advanced neoplasia were 5.5% and 19.1%, respectively. The adenoma detection rate in the patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT was 48.2% (60.0% for men and 33.6% for women). The group with the highest tertile quantitative FIT level showed a significantly higher detection rate of advanced neoplasia than the group with the lowest tertile (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 5.1; p<0.001).

Conclusions

The quality metrics used in the United States and Europe may be directly introduced to other countries, including Korea. However, the optimal quality metrics should be established in each country.

Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type

Background and study aims  To compare the quality of colonoscopy in a population-based coordinated program of colorectal cancer screening according to type of hospital (academic or non-academic). Patients and methods  Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT (≥ 20 ug Hb/g feces) between January 2009 and September 2016 were prospectively included at five academic and seven non-academic public hospitals. Screening colonoscopy quality indicators considered were adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, complications and bowel preparation quality. Results  A total of 48,759 patients underwent colonoscopy, 34,616 (80 %) in academic hospitals and 14,143 in non-academic hospitals. Among these cases, 19,942 (37.1 %) advanced adenomas and 2,607 (5.3 %) colorectal cancers (CRCs) were detected, representing a total of 22,549 (46.2 %) cases of advanced neoplasia. The adenoma detection rate was 64 %, 63.1 % in academic hospitals and 66.4 % in non-academic hospitals ( P  < 0.001). Rates of advanced adenoma detection, cecal intubation and adequate colonic preparation were 45.8 %, 96.2 % and 88.3 %, respectively, and in all cases were lower (implying worse quality care) in academic hospitals (45.3 % vs 48.7 %; odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.84 - 0.91; 95.9 % vs 97 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.38 - 0.69; and 86.4 % vs 93 %; OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.45 - 0.5; respectively; P  < 0.001 in all cases). In 13 patients, all in the academic hospital group, CRC was diagnosed after colonoscopy (0.26 cases × 1000 colonoscopies). Rates of CRC treated by endoscopy were similar in both types of hospital (30 %). The rate of severe complication was 1.2 % (602 patients), with no significant differences by hospital type: bleeding occurred in 1/147 colonoscopies and perforation in 1/329. One patient died within 30 days after screening colonoscopy. Conclusions  The quality of colonoscopy was better in non-academic hospitals. The rate of detection of advanced neoplasia was higher in non-academic hospitals and correlated with the rate of post-colonoscopy CRC.

Colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive participants from a colorectal cancer screening program

Background and study aims  Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and negative colonoscopy is unknown. We aimed to ascertain the cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and the manifestation of other lesions that could explain the test positivity in individuals with a negative colonoscopy in a population screening program. Patients and method  Observational study in participants from the first round of a CRC screening program (2010 - 2012) with positive-FIT (≥ 20 μg/g of feces) and negative colonoscopy (without neoplasia). A 42- to 76-month follow-up was performed searching in the National Health Service database and by a brief structured telephonic interview. Results  Of 2659 FIT-positive individuals who underwent colonoscopy, 811 (30.5 %) had a negative colonoscopy. Three PCCRC (0.4 %) were detected within 11 - 28 months and accelerated carcinogenesis was ruled out. Among those with normal colonoscopy, 32 (5 %) relevant lesions were detected at follow-up. One-third of them (11/32) were significant neoplasias: a gastric cancer, a small-bowel lymphoma, six advanced colorectal adenomas, and the three PCCRC. The 21 remaining lesions were inflammatory, vascular disorders, or non-advanced colorectal adenomas. Conclusions  The vast majority (95 %) of individuals did not present any subsequent lesion that could explain the FIT positivity. The very low incidence (0.4 %) and characteristics of PCCRC observed in our cohort reinforce the concept that, although a positive FIT preselects high risk individuals, a high quality colonoscopy is the paramount factor in preventing PCCRC. Improving quality standards of colonoscopy are required to strengthen the current CRC screening strategies.

Prospective analysis of the complications, efficacy, and satisfaction level on the sedation performed by anaesthetists in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the anaesthesia/sedation complications during gastrointestinal endoscopy, as well as comparing scheduled procedures versus urgent procedures.

METHODS

A protocol was developed to define the anaesthesia/sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where the anaesthetist should always be present. These include ASA 3 and 4 patients, complex tests such as polypectomies, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound, deep sedation, or patients with probable difficult airway management. An analysis was made of the safety based on the complications recorded from the data directly collected automatically from the monitors, both during the sedation and in the recovery unit. An analysis was also performed on the risk factors associated with cardiorespiratory complications, the effectiveness based on the completed tests and the overall level of satisfaction through an interview using a satisfaction scale.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 3746 patients over a 7 year-period. The incidence of major complications was low, especially haemodynamic and respiratory complications. An incidence of hypoxaemia of 3% was found in scheduled endoscopy versus 5.7% in urgent endoscopy (P<.05). The rate of hypotension was also low, with significant differences between scheduled and urgent endoscopy (6.4% vs. 18.8%, P<.001). In present study, no test had to be suspended due to poor patient tolerance, and the satisfaction was high in more than 99% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The participation of the anaesthetist in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy has shown excellent results in this study, in terms of safety and efficacy, mainly in the most serious patients and complex tests, as well as a high level of satisfaction.

Revision of Quality Indicators for the Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are widely used for the early diagnosis of stomach and colorectal cancer. The present revision integrates recent data regarding previous quality indicators and novel indicators suggested for gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures for the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. The new indicators, developed by the Quality Improvement Committee of the Korean Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vary in the level of supporting evidence, and most are based solely on expert opinion. Updated indicators validated by clinical research were prioritized, but were chosen by expert consensus when such studies were absent. The resultant quality indicators were graded according to the levels of consensus and recommendations. The updated indicators will provide a relevant guideline for high-quality endoscopy. The future direction of quality indicator development should include relevant outcome measures and an evidence-based approach to support proposed performance targets.

[Revision of Quality Indicators for the Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea]

Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are widely used for the early diagnosis of stomach and colorectal cancer. The present revision integrates recent data regarding previous quality indicators and novel indicators suggested for gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures for the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. The new indicators, developed by the Quality Improvement Committee of the Korean Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vary in the level of supporting evidence, and most are based solely on expert opinion. Updated indicators validated by clinical research were prioritized, but were chosen by expert consensus when such studies were absent. The resultant quality indicators were graded according to the levels of consensus and recommendations. The updated indicators will provide a relevant guideline for high-quality endoscopy. The future direction of quality indicator development should include relevant outcome measures and an evidence-based approach to support proposed performance targets.

The right colon challenge

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the fourth cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. In an attempt to raise awareness on this situation, and to implement preventive measures, March 31st has been established as international colorectal cancer awareness day. Our country, with the Spanish "Alianza para la Prevención del Cáncer de Colon", pioneered in 2008 an institution that brought together scientific and civil societies to pursue this goal. A stabilization, even a decrease in the incidence and mortality of this condition has been reported in western countries for the last few years, which may be attributed to a number of highly relevant factors.

National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program Remains Suboptimal in Korea

Background/Aims

We evaluated the characteristics of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) and opinions regarding the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (NEQIP).

Methods

We surveyed physicians performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy screenings as part of the NCSP via e-mail between July and August in 2015. The 32-item survey instrument included endoscopic capacity, sedation, and reprocessing of endoscopes as well as opinions regarding the NEQIP.

Results

A total of 507 respondents were analyzed after the exclusion of 40 incomplete answers. Under the current capacity of the NCSP, the typical waiting time for screening endoscopy was less than 4 weeks in more than 90% of endoscopy units. Performance of endoscopy reprocessing was suboptimal, with 28% of respondents using unapproved disinfectants or not knowing the main ingredient of their disinfectants and 15% to 17% of respondents not following reprocessing protocols. Agreement with the NEQIP was optimal, because only 5.7% of respondents did not agree with NEQIP; however, familiarity with the NEQIP was suboptimal, because only 37.3% of respondents were familiar with the NEQIP criteria.

Conclusions

The NEQ-IP remains suboptimal in Korea. Given the suboptimal performance of endoscopy reprocessing and low familiarity with the NEQIP, improved quality in endoscopy reprocessing and better understanding of the NEQIP should be emphasized in Korea.

Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

Inadequate bowel cleansing is a major burden for endoscopy units. The aim of this study was to compare two intensive bowel cleansing regimens in patients with previous colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

Patients with inadequate cleansing at index colonoscopy were randomized to 4-L split-dose polyethylene-glycol (PEG) regimen vs. 2-L split-dose PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) regimen. All individuals underwent a 3-day low-residue diet and received 10 mg of bisacodyl, the day before colonoscopy. Cleansing was considered to be adequate if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scored ≥2 at each colonic segment. A non-inferiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that colonic cleansing with 2-L PEG+Asc was not inferior to 4-l PEG, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10%.

RESULTS

Adequate bowel cleansing was significantly higher in patients assigned to 4-L PEG regimen (n=127) vs. those randomized to 2-L PEG+Asc regimen (n=129) by intention-to-treat analysis (81.1 vs. 67.4%, odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.163-3.689)) and by per-protocol analysis (86.6 vs. 71.7%, OR: 2.55, 95% CI: (1.316-4.922)). The study was terminated for futility after the interim analysis, because the 95% CI of the difference of proportions was 3.13-24.27% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 3.33-26.47% in the per-protocol analysis, confirming the superiority of 4-L PEG preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

After 3-day low-residue diet and oral bisacodyl before colonoscopy, colon cleansing with 4-L split-dose PEG was superior to 2-L split-dose PEG+Asc in patients with previous inadequate cleansing. (EUDRACT: 2013-002506-31, NCT02073552).

Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators

The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.