Colonoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma detection in the right colon

Colorectal cancer: local results and significance in Hungary

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial morbidity and mortality internationally. In Hungary, the incidence and mortality of CRC are among the world's highest. Fortunately, CRC is a highly preventable disease, since there is a long asymptomatic phase before neoplastic transformation. Numerous countries have instituted programs for CRC screening. However, Hungary did not implement population-based screening programs until December 2018, consisting of a voluntary 2-step screening program based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and if positive, referral to colonoscopy. Asymptomatic individuals aged over 50 years were invited to participate in the 2-step program. This study aims to analyze the results of these colonoscopies and raise public awareness of the CRC disease process and prevention, especially in Hungary.

Methods

Various literature sources were reviewed, and external information was gathered and consolidated based on CRC etiopathogenesis, management options, screening options, cost, benefits, modalities, and quality control. Semmelweis University Department of Internal Medicine and Hematology's database was accessed for the cross-sectional study results of 168 screening colonoscopies within the 2-step program from 2019 to 2020. I quantified and compared the results obtained during the colonoscopies with that of said literature within Hungary and worldwide.

Results

Colonoscopy was performed in 168 patients of average age 63.4 years. The incidence of CRCs in the population was 4.76%. Among the CRC cases, 75% were in the rectosigmoid area and 25% were in the remaining colon. The total adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the study was 57.1%, higher than the recommended 25% for adequate screening colonoscopy. The total number of resected polyps was 270; 8.1% were adenomas with high-grade dysplasia and 0.76% contained CRC. Out of the 185 resected adenomas, 141 were tubular, 34 were tubulovillous, and 10 were villous. Adenoma localizations included 14.6% rectum, 38.4% sigmoid, 11.9% descending colon, 8.6% transverse colon, 17.8% ascending colon, and 8.6% cecum. The average age of CRC patients was 63.9 years (range, 56-68 years) with a slight female predominance (5 females, 3 males). The ADR of the different endoscopists did not seem to correlate with experience. Optimal participation rate of the screening program would be >60%. Population outreach through mailed FIT is evidence-based and shown to increase CRC screening rates in underserved populations.

Conclusions

Hungary would benefit immensely in most aspects from mandatory, population-based CRC screening with this 2-step program. This alternative is proposed in lieu of 1-step screening, because of the limited capacity for colonoscopy in the country and the limited participation rates in the screened population. To reach maximum cost-benefit, the participation rate of the screened population must be >60%, with >80% of FIT positive test results being referred to colonoscopy. Consolidation and distribution of the screening program through population outreach will bring about substantial reductions in mortality from CRC. Further studies are warranted on the feasibility and sustainability of this 2-step program.

Gastroenterologist focus of clinical practice affects adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy

Our objective was to determine whether the clinical focus of gastroenterology practice would affect screening colonoscopy quality metrics, specifically adenoma detection (AD). In a retrospective study of screening colonoscopies, gastroenterologists were categorized based on their clinical subspecialty focus into general/motility, hepatology, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and interventional endoscopy. The primary outcome was AD with a secondary outcome of adenoma and/or sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection (AD + SSP). A total of 5271 (male: 49.1%) complete colonoscopies were performed between 2010 and 2020 by 16 gastroenterologists (male: 62.5%, general/motility specialists: 3, hepatologists: 3, IBD specialists: 4, interventional endoscopists: 6). The AD and AD + SSP rate between each specialty focus were 27.5% and 31.0% for general/motility, 31.4% and 35.5% for hepatology, 38.4% and 43.6% for IBD, and 37.5% and 43.2% for interventional endoscopy. In regression analysis, patient's male gender (odds ratios [OR]: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.60-2.05, P < .001), longer withdrawal time (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.14-1.18, P < .001), hepatologist (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.53, P = .029), IBD subspecialist (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.98, P < .001), and interventional endoscopist (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.64, P < .001) were independently associated with AD. Moreover, patient's male gender (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.45-1.85, P < .001), acceptable bowel preparation (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.56, P = .010), withdrawal time (1.20, 95% CI: 1.18-1.22, P < .001), hepatologist (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.07-1.59, P = .008), IBD subspecialist (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.39-2.12, P < .001), interventional endoscopist (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.20-1.72, P < .001) were independent factors that improved detection of AD + SSP. Subspecialty focus of practice was an important factor in AD rate along with the male gender of the patient, bowel preparation, and withdrawal time.

Key quality indicators in colonoscopy

Many quality indicators have been proposed for colonoscopy, but most colonoscopists and endoscopy groups focus on measuring the adenoma detection rate and the cecal intubation rate. Use of proper screening and surveillance intervals is another accepted key indicator but it is seldom evaluated in clinical practice. Bowel preparation efficacy and polyp resection skills are areas that are emerging as potential key or priority indicators. This review summarizes and provides an update on key performance indicators for colonoscopy quality.

A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time is still a controversial topic. While several studies demonstrate that longer withdrawal time improves adenoma detection rate, others have contradicted these findings.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to January 2021 and included studies reporting comparison of the two cohorts-(i) ≥ 6 but less than 9 min of colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and (ii) ≥ 9 min of CWT. The outcome measures were the following: (i) adenoma detection rate (ADR), (ii) advanced ADR, and (iii) sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SDR). The meta-analysis was performed, and the statistics were two-tailed.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria after a thorough search of the literature was completed. The analysis revealed that ≥ 9 min of CWT had significantly higher odds of adenoma detection as compared with 6-9 min of CWT (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.82; I²  = 93.7). Additionally, a significantly higher odds of sessile serrated adenoma detection (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22; I²  = 0) and a trend towards higher odds of advanced adenoma detection (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.95, I²  = 90) were seen with CWT of at least 9 min when compared with 6-9 min of CWT.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis analysis provides further evidence that at least 9 min of CWT cohort had significantly higher ADR and SDR as compared with the at least 6 min but less than 9 min of cohort.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.