An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs. METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD when used in community practice.

Effect of Real-Time Computer-Aided Polyp Detection System (ENDO-AID) on Adenoma Detection in Endoscopists-in-Training: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) on adenoma detection rate (ADR) among endoscopists-in-training remains unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Hong Kong between April 2021 and July 2022 (NCT04838951). Eligible subjects undergoing screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies were randomized 1:1 to receive colonoscopies with CADe (ENDO-AID[OIP-1]) or not (control) during withdrawal. Procedures were performed by endoscopists-in-training with <500 procedures and <3 years' experience. Randomization was stratified by patient age, sex, and endoscopist experience (beginner vs intermediate level, <200 vs 200-500 procedures). Image enhancement and distal attachment devices were disallowed. Subjects with incomplete colonoscopies or inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Treatment allocation was blinded to outcome assessors. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for different adenoma sizes and locations, mean number of adenomas, and non-neoplastic resection rate. RESULTS: A total of 386 and 380 subjects were randomized to CADe and control groups, respectively. The overall ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (57.5% vs 44.5%; adjusted relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.72; P < .001). The ADRs for <5 mm (40.4% vs 25.0%) and 5- to 10-mm adenomas (36.8% vs 29.2%) were higher in the CADe group. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group in both the right colon (42.0% vs 30.8%) and left colon (34.5% vs 27.6%), but there was no significant difference in advanced ADR. The ADRs were higher in the CADe group among beginner (60.0% vs 41.9%) and intermediate-level (56.5% vs 45.5%) endoscopists. Mean number of adenomas (1.48 vs 0.86) and non-neoplastic resection rate (52.1% vs 35.0%) were higher in the CADe group. CONCLUSIONS: Among endoscopists-in-training, the use of CADe during colonoscopies was associated with increased overall ADR. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04838951).

The Efficacy of Real-time Computer-aided Detection of Colonic Neoplasia in Community Practice: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of computer-aided detection (CADe) has increased the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but has not shown benefit in real-world implementation studies. We performed a single-center pragmatic RCT to evaluate the impact of real-time CADe on ADRs in colonoscopy performed by community gastroenterologists. METHODS: We enrolled 1100 patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, positive fecal-immunohistochemical tests, and diagnostic indications at one community-based center from September 2022 to March 2023. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to traditional colonoscopy or real-time CADe. Blinded pathologists analyzed histopathologic findings. The primary outcome was ADR (the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC), sessile-serrated lesion detection rate, and non-neoplastic resection rate. RESULTS: The median age was 55.5 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years), 61% were female, 72.7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 9.1% had inadequate bowel preparation. The ADR for the CADe group was significantly higher than the traditional colonoscopy group (42.5% vs 34.4%; P = .005). The mean APC was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the traditional colonoscopy group (0.89 ± 1.46 vs 0.60 ± 1.12; P < .001). The improvement in adenoma detection was driven by increased detection of <5 mm adenomas. CADe had a higher sessile-serrated lesion detection rate than traditional colonoscopy (4.7% vs 2.0%; P = .01). The improvement in ADR with CADe was significantly higher in the first half of the study (47.2% vs 33.7%; P = .002) compared with the second half (38.7% vs 34.9%; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center pragmatic RCT, real-time CADe modestly improved ADR and APC in average-detector community endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05963724).

Sedated Colonoscopy may not be Beneficial for Polyp/Adenoma Detection.

BACKGROUND: Sedated colonoscopy has been increasingly selected. However, the effect of sedated colonoscopy on polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR) remains controversial among studies. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the medical records of 11 504 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our department from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into sedated and unsedated groups according to the use of intravenous sedation during colonoscopy. Overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR were calculated. By adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, inpatient, screening/surveillance, cecal intubation time, colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥6 min, and an endoscopist's experience ≥5 years, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of sedated colonoscopy with overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR, where the absence of PDR/ADR was used as reference. Odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 2275 patients were included, of whom 293 and 1982 underwent sedated and unsedated colonoscopy, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that sedated colonoscopy was independently associated with lower overall PDR/ADR (OR = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.460-0.889, P = 0.008), right-side colon PDR/ADR (OR = 0.591, 95% CI = 0.417-0.837, P = 0.003), single PDR/ADR (OR = 0.659, 95% CI = 0.436-0.996, P = 0.048), and multiple PDR/ADR (OR = 0.586, 95% CI = 0.402-0.855, P = 0.005), but not transverse or left-side colon PDR/ADR. CONCLUSION: Sedated colonoscopy may not be beneficial in terms of overall PDR/ADR, right-side colon PDR/ADR, and number of polyps/adenomas. Thus, it should be selectively recommended. Additionally, it should be necessary to explore how to improve the quality of sedated colonoscopy.

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 µg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2). METHODS: 240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure. RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62). CONCLUSION: While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Linked color imaging improves colorectal lesion detection especially for low performance endoscopists: An international trial in Asia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Linked color imaging (LCI) is an image-enhanced endoscopy technique that accentuates the color difference between red and white, potentially improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, it remains unclear whether LCI performance in detecting colorectal lesions differs based on endoscopists' experience levels. We aimed to evaluate the differences in LCI efficacy based on the experience levels of endoscopists by conducting an exploratory analysis. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of an international randomized controlled trial comparing the detection of adenoma and other lesions using colonoscopy with LCI and high-definition white light imaging (WLI), we included patients from 11 institutions across four countries/regions: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Singapore. We retrospectively reviewed differences in the lesion detection of LCI according to endoscopists' colonoscopy history or ADR. RESULTS: We included 1692 and 1138 patients who underwent colonoscopies performed by 54 experts (experience of ≥ 5000 colonoscopies) and by 43 non-experts (experience of < 5000 colonoscopies), respectively. Both expert and non-expert groups showed a significant improvement in ADR with LCI compared to WLI (expert, 61.7% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001; non-expert, 56.6% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001). LCI had no effect on sessile serrated lesion detection rate in non-experts (3.1% vs 2.5%; P = 0.518). LCI significantly improved detection rates in endoscopists with relatively low detection performance, defined as an ADR < 50%. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study analyzed data from a previous trial and revealed that LCI is useful for both experts and non-experts and is even more beneficial for endoscopists with relatively low detection performance using WLI.

Comparison of the characteristics of the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI colonoscopes in non-sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The purpose of this randomized controlled study was to compare the characteristics of the CF-H290I (high-definition) colonoscope with those of the PCF-Q260JI (high-resolution) colonoscope in non-sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery in an effort to help endoscopists to select more effectively and objectively between the various colonoscopes. METHODS: A total of 397 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, between August 2022 and October 2022 were randomized to a CF-H290I group (n = 198) or a PCF-Q260JI group (n = 199) using a computer-generated allocation method. We compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient satisfaction with the examination, discomfort associated with colonoscopy including abdominal distension and pain, cecal intubation time, and patient willingness to undergo colonoscopy in the future between the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the overall ADR between the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI groups (81 [40.9%] vs 63 [31.7%], Z = 3.674, P = 0.055). However, the ADRs in the transverse colon and left colon were significantly higher in the CF-H290I group (22 [11.1%] vs 6 [3.0%], Z = 9.588, P = 0.002 and 57 [28.8%] vs 37 [18.6%], Z = 5.212, P = 0.017, respectively). More sessile serrated lesions were detected in the CF-H290I group (52 [26.3] vs 30 [15.1%], Z = 7.579, P = 0.006). Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy was better in the PCF-Q260JI group (8.91 ± 1.09 vs 8.51 ± 1.44, t = -3.158, P < 0.01) with less likelihood of discomfort (23 [11.6%] vs 41 [20.7%], Z = 6.144, P = 0.013), The number of patients willing to undergo colonoscopy in the future was significantly greater in the PCF-Q260JI group (168 [84.4%] vs 149 [75.3%], Z = 5.186, P = 0.023). The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the CF-H290I group (256.09 ± 155.70 s vs 315.64 ± 171.64 s, P = 0.004). There were no complications such as perforation or bleeding in either group. CONCLUSION: The CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI colonoscopes each have advantages when used in patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery. The CF-H290I has higher ADRs in the transverse and left colon whereas the PCF-Q260JI is less painful and better accepted by patients. This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Wuxi People's Hospital and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200063092).

Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In standard colonoscopic examinations, some polyps may be missed during the withdrawal phase. Re-examination of the right colon can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of applying this re-examination strategy to the entire colon remains unknown. We investigated whether re-examination could increase the detection rate of polyps and adenomas throughout the colon. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, single-center trial (NCT03268200) was conducted in a university hospital. Patients aged 45-75 years were randomly assigned to either the study or control group. For patients in the control group, observation and polypectomy were performed once using the standard colonoscopy method. For patients in the study group, polypectomy was repeated twice during the withdrawal phase after the initial insertion of the colonoscope. These examinations were performed in the right transverse and left colons. The primary endpoints were the polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, defined as the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 polyp and ≥ 1 adenoma, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 406 patients were enrolled (study group, n = 210; control group, n = 196) and analyzed. Generally, PDRs and ADRs were similar between the study (withdrawal 1 + 2) and control groups (withdrawal 1), except for the right colon. However, the second withdrawal review increased number of polyps and adenomas in the overall, right, mid, and left colon, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial indicated that re-examination of the entire colon during colonoscopy could be beneficial for detecting concealed polyps in patients at risk of interval cancer.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer. CONCLUSION: Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Impact of an artificial intelligence-aided endoscopic diagnosis system on improving endoscopy quality for trainees in colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees. METHODS: The patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back-to-back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end-point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end-points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees. CONCLUSION: CAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

Optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

Barriers against Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Performance Measures for Colonoscopy in Clinical Practice.

Background and Objectives: The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for colonoscopy are suboptimal in clinical practice. Electronic reporting systems may play an important role in data retrieval. We aimed to define the possibility of systematically assessing and monitoring ESGE performance measures for colonoscopy through reporting systems. Materials and Methods: We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on the quality of colonoscopy held in Rome, Italy, in March 2023 by a self-administered questionnaire. Analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting. Results: The attendance was 93% (M/F 67/26), with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practices. Only about one-third (34%) and 21.5% of participants stated that their reporting system allows them to retrieve all the ESGE performance measures, overall and as automatic retrieval, respectively. Only 66.7% and 10.7% of respondents can systematically report the cecal intubation and the adenoma detection rate, respectively. The analysis according to hospital setting revealed no significant difference for all the items. Conclusions: We found a generalized lack of systematic tracking of performance measures for colonoscopy due to underperforming reporting systems. Our results underline the need to update reporting systems to monitor the quality of endoscopy practice in Italy.

Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR. METHODS: We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures. RESULTS: Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Endoscopy Unit Level Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely correlated with the risk of interval colon cancer and is a key target for quality improvement in endoscopy units. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that can be implemented at the endoscopy unit level to improve ADRs. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between January 1990 and December 2022 to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were eligible. Data for the primary outcome of ADR were analyzed and reported on the log-odds scale with 95% CIs using a random-effects meta-analysis model using the empiric Bayes estimator. RESULTS: From 10,778 initial citations, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis comprising 371,041 procedures and 1501 endoscopists. The provision of report cards (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001) and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .002) were associated with significant increases in ADRs whereas multimodal interventions were borderline significant (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; P = .05) and withdrawal time monitoring was not associated significantly with an increase in ADRs (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.93-1.96; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of report cards and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps are associated with improved ADRs and should be considered for implementation in endoscopy facilities.

Linked-Color Imaging Detects More Colorectal Adenoma and Serrated Lesions: An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Effects of linked-color imaging (LCI) on colorectal lesion detection and colonoscopy quality remain controversial. This study compared the detection rates of adenoma and other precursor lesions using LCI vs white-light imaging (WLI) during screening, diagnostic, and surveillance colonoscopies. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was performed at 11 institutions in 4 Asian countries/regions. Patients with abdominal symptoms, a primary screening colonoscopy, positive fecal immunochemical test results, or undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the LCI or high-definition WLI group. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, advanced ADR, sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate, and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy. The recommended surveillance schedule distribution after trial colonoscopy was analyzed. RESULTS: Between November 2020 and January 2022, there were 3050 participants (LCI, n = 1527; WLI, n = 1523) recruited. The LCI group ADR was significantly higher than the WLI group ADR using intention-to-treat (58.7% vs 46.7%; P < .01) and per-protocol analyses (59.6% vs 46.4%; P < .01). The LCI group polyp detection rates (68.6% vs 59.5%; P < .01), SSL detection rates (4.8% vs 2.8%; P < .01), and adenomas per colonoscopy (1.48 vs 1.02; P < .01) also were significantly higher. However, the advanced ADR was not significantly different (13.2% vs 11.0%; P = .06). Significantly more patients in the LCI group had shorter recommended surveillance schedules than the WLI group (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with WLI, LCI improved adenoma and other polyp detection rates, including SSLs, resulting in alteration of the recommended surveillance schedule after screening, diagnostic, and postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000042432 (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is considered the most effective tool for reducing colorectal cancer-related morbidity, the age at which average-risk individuals begin colonoscopic screening is undetermined. This study aimed to compare the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates according to age and sex in a large average-risk population in the rural areas of Eastern China. METHODS: This observational, single-center, retrospective study included patients with average colorectal cancer risk and examined the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates using age intervals of 5 years. We also compared the size and age of patients with and without advanced adenoma. RESULTS: We included 18 928 patients with a median age of 54 years (range 15-90 years), including 10 143 men and 8785 women. The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates were 17.08% and 5.24%, respectively, and increased with age in the whole population. The adenoma detection rates increased from 8.97% (aged 40-44) to 14.98% (aged 45-49) and 6.24% (aged 45-49) to 11.00% (aged 50-54) in men and women (both P < .001), respectively. The advanced adenoma detection rates increased from 2.19% (aged 40-44) to 4.76% (aged 45-49) and 1.89% (aged 45-49) to 3.13% (aged 50-54) in men (P = .002) and women (P = .056), respectively. Patients with advanced adenomas were significantly older than those with non-advanced adenomas (P < .001). The tumors in the advanced adenoma group were significantly larger than those in the non-advanced adenoma group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates increased significantly in average-risk population aged 45 years and older, especially in men.

Colonoscopy performance monitoring: do we need to adjust for case mix?

INTRODUCTION: Overall caecum intubation rate(oCIR) and overall polyp detection rate(oPDR) have been proposed as performance indicators, but varying complexity in case mix among endoscopists may potentially affect validity. The study aims to explore the effect of adjusting for case mix on individual endoscopist performance by calculating case mix-adjusted performance estimates (cmCIR and cmPDR) and comparing them to overall performance estimates (oCIR and oPDR). The study also provides an R program for case mix analysis. METHODS: Logistic regression associated endoscopist, colonoscopy indication, patient age and patient gender with the binary outcomes of cecum intubation and polyp detection. Case mix-adjusted performance indicators were calculated for each endoscopist based on logistic regression and bootstraps. Endoscopists were ranked from best to worst by overall and case mix-adjusted performance estimates, and differences were evaluated using percentage points(pp) and rank changes. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 7376 colonoscopies performed by 47 endoscopists. The maximum rank change for an endoscopist comparing oCIR and cmCIR was eight positions, interquartile range (IQR 1-3). The maximum change in CIR was 1.95 percentage point (pp) (IQR 0.27-0.86). The maximum rank change in the oPDR versus cmPDR analysis was 17 positions (IQR 1.5-8.5). The maximum change in PDR was 11.21 pp (IQR 2.05-6.70). Three endoscopists improved their performance from significantly inferior to within the 95% confidence interval (CI) range of performance targets using case mix-adjusted estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of endoscopists were unaffected by adjustment for case mix, but a few unfortunate endoscopists had an unfavourable case mix that could invite incorrect suspicion of inferior performance.

Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy decreases colorectal cancer mortality; however, lesions are occasionally missed. Although an appropriate surveillance interval is indicated, variations may occur in the methods used, such as scope manipulation or observation. Therefore, individual endoscopists may miss certain areas. This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of performing repeat colonoscopies with a different endoscopist from the initial procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a database of 8093 consecutive colonoscopies performed in the Omori Red Cross Hospital from January 1st 2018 to June 30th 2021. Data from repeat total colonoscopies performed within three months were collected to assess missed lesions. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the two examinations were performed by different endoscopists (group D) or the same endoscopist (group S). The primary outcome in both groups was the missed lesion detection rate (MLDR). RESULTS: Overall, 205 eligible patients were analyzed. In total, 102 and 103 patients were enrolled in groups D and S, respectively. The MLDR was significantly higher in group D (61.8% vs. 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the detection of missed lesions identified performance by the different endoscopists (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.81-6.30), and sufficient withdrawal time (> 6 min) (odds ratio, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.12-8.61) as significant variables. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our study showed a significant improvement in the detection of missed lesions when performed by different endoscopists. When performing repeat colonoscopy, it is desirable that a different endoscopist perform the second colonoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Omori Red Cross Hospital on November 28, 2022 (approval number:22-43).