Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 µg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.

The effect of train-the-colonoscopy-trainer course on colonoscopy quality indicators.

BACKGROUND: Systematic training in colonoscopy is highly recommended; however, we have limited knowledge of the effects of "training-the-colonoscopy-trainer" (TCT) courses. Using a national quality register on colonoscopy performance, we aimed to evaluate the effects of TCT participation on defined quality indicators. METHODS: This observational study compared quality indicators (pain, cecal intubation, and polyp detection) between centers participating versus not participating in a TCT course. Nonparticipating centers were assigned a pseudoparticipating year to match their participating counterparts. Results were compared between first year after and the year before TCT (pseudo)participation. Time trends up to 5 years after TCT (pseudo)participation were also compared. Generalized estimating equation models, adjusted for age, sex, and bowel cleansing, were used. RESULTS: 11 participating and 11 nonparticipating centers contributed 18 555 and 10 730 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, there was a significant increase in detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, from 26.4 % to 29.2 % (P = 0.035), and reduction in moderate/severe pain experienced by women, from 38.2 % to 33.6 % (P = 0.043); no significant changes were found in nonparticipating centers. Over 5 years, 20 participating and 18 nonparticipating centers contributed 85 691 and 41 569 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, polyp detection rate increased linearly (P = 0.003), and pain decreased linearly in women (P = 0.004). Nonparticipating centers did not show any significant time trend during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a TCT course improved polyp detection rates and reduced pain experienced by women. These effects were maintained during a 5-year follow-up.

Colonoscopy quality improvement after initial training: A cross-sectional study of intensive short-term training.

Background and study aims High-quality is crucial for the effectiveness of colonoscopy and can be achieved by high-quality training and verified with assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) for colonoscopy such as cecum intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adequate polyp resection. Typically, trainees achieve adequate CIR after 275 procedures, but little is known about learning curves for KPIs after initial training. Methods This cross-sectional study includes work-up colonoscopies after a positive screening test with fecal occult blood testing (FIT) or sigmoidoscopy, performed by either trainees after 300 training colonoscopies or by consultants. Outcome measures were KPIs. We assessed inter-endoscopist variation in trainees and learning curves for trainees as a group. We also compared KPIs for trainees and consultants as a group.  Results Data from 6,655 colonoscopies performed by 21 trainees and 921 colonoscopies performed by 17 consultants were included. Most trainees achieved target standards for main KPIs. With time, trainees shortened cecum intubation time and withdrawal time without decreasing their ADR, reduced the proportion of painful colonoscopies, and increased the adequate polyp resection rate (all P  < 0.01). Compared to consultants, trainees had higher CIR (97.7 % vs. 96.3 %, P  = 0.02), ADR after positive FIT (57.6 % vs. 50.3 %, P  < 0.01), and proximal ADR after sigmoidoscopy screening (41.1 % vs. 29.8 %; P  < 0.01), higher adequate polyp resection rate (94.9 % vs. 93.1 %, P  = 0.01) and fewer serious adverse events (0.65 % vs. 1.41 %, P  = 0.02). Conclusions Trainees performed high-quality colonoscopies and achieved international target standards. Several KPIs continuously improved after initial training. Trainees outperformed consultants on several KPIs.

Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction - both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into "junior" and "senior" endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. CONCLUSION: Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.