European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.  They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.

Assessment of the multiple components of the variability in the adenoma detection rate in sigmoidoscopy screening, and lessons for training.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The determinants of the observed variability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in endoscopy screening have not yet been fully explained. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 1999 and November 2006 13 764 people (7094 men, 6670 women; age range 55-64) underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy at five hospital endoscopy units in Turin. To study the determinants of the ADR for distal adenomas, accounting for patient, examiner, and hospital characteristics, we applied a multivariate multilevel regression model. RESULTS: Average ADRs for all adenomas and for advanced adenomas (size > or = 10 mm, villous component > 20 %, high grade dysplasia) were 13.5 % (range 5.2 %-25.0 %) and 6.4 % (3.1 %-10.7 %) for men, and 8.0 % (2.5 %-14.0 %) and 3.7 % (0.2 % - 7.4 %) for women. In multivariate analysis, increased ADR of advanced adenomas was associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95 %CI 1.49 - 2.11), self-report of one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.44, 1.11-1.86), or of recent-onset rectal bleeding (1.73, 1.24-2.40). Adjusting for these variables, a significantly lower ADR was found for endoscopists with either a lower rate of incomplete sigmoidoscopy (< 9 %; OR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.41-0.87) or a higher rate (> 12 %; 0.64, 0.45-0.91), or with low activity volume (< 85 sigmoidoscopies/year; 0.66, 0.50-0.86). Residual variability explained by the endoscopy center effect was about 1 % and statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist performance in flexible sigmoidoscopy CRC screening is highly variable. Low volume of screening activity independently predicts lower ADR, suggesting that operators devoting more time to screening sigmoidoscopy may perform better. Variability among pathologists in adenoma classification might explain part of the residual variability across endoscopy units.