Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

Association of Endoscopist Colonoscopy Quality Measures With Follow-Up Colonoscopy Outcomes After Positive Stool Tests (Multitarget Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test): Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests could result from stool test characteristics or from the quality of endoscopist performance. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between endoscopist detection rates and polyp yield in colonoscopies performed for positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test to evaluate the degree to which positive stool tests followed by negative colonoscopy ("false positives") vary with endoscopist quality. In addition, we investigated the frequency of significant polyps in the subgroup of highest quality colonoscopies following positive stool tests. METHODS: We compared the frequencies of negative colonoscopies and of specific polyps following positive stool tests across quartiles of endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) and clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate (CSSDR). RESULTS: Our sample included 864 mt-sDNA+ and 497 FIT+ patients. We found a significantly lower frequency of negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests among endoscopists with higher ADR and CSSDR, particularly in the 2 highest quartiles. In addition, detection of any adenoma after a positive stool test for endoscopists in the fourth ADR quartile was 63.3% (FIT+) and 62.8% (mt-sDNA+). Among endoscopists in the fourth CSSDR quartile, sessile serrated lesions were found in 29.2% of examinations following a positive mt-sDNA and in 13.5% following FIT+ examinations. DISCUSSION: The frequency of negative colonoscopies after positive stool tests was significantly higher in examinations performed by endoscopists with low ADR and CSSDR. Our results also suggest a benchmark target of at least 40% for ADR in patients with mt-sDNA+ or FIT+ tests and 20% for sessile serrated lesions in mt-sDNA+ patients.

Systematic scoping review: Use of the faecal immunochemical test residual buffer to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an inexpensive and convenient modality to screen for colorectal cancer. However, its one-time sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and cancer precursors is limited. There is growing interest in using the non-haemoglobin contents of FIT residual buffer to enhance colonic neoplasia detection. AIM: To establish from the literature a framework to catalogue candidate biomarkers within FIT residual buffer for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: The search strategy evaluated PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar for publications through 25 October 2023, with search terms including FIT, buffer, OC-sensor, biomarkers, microbiome, microRNA (miR), colon, rectum, screening, neoplasm, and early detection. Studies employing home-based collection samples using quantitative FIT first processed for haemoglobin were included. One author reviewed all articles; a second author completed a 20% full-text audit to ensure adherence to eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A broad search yielded 1669 studies and application of eligibility criteria identified 18 relevant studies. Multiple protein, DNA/RNA, and microbiome biomarkers (notably haptoglobin, miR-16, miR-27a-3p, miR-92a, miR-148a-3p, miR-223, miR-421, let-7b-5p, and Tyzzerella 4) were associated with colorectal neoplasia. Furthermore, studies highlighted the short-term stability of biomarkers for clinical use and long-term stability for research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarises the framework and progress of research on stability of biomarkers in FIT residual buffer and their associations with colorectal neoplasia to guide opportunities for further confirmatory studies to enhance colorectal cancer screening.

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening: Maximizing Success by Minimizing Failure.

Implementing fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) through clinic based opportunistic screening or programmatic mailing is not as straightforward as it seems. Liu and colleagues present data for 56,980 individuals who submitted a FIT in a safety net hospital system. In 10.2% (N = 5,819), the test was deemed unsatisfactory. These data demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement in clinical practice regarding colorectal cancer screening with FIT. The high rate of 10% for unsatisfactory FIT tests is higher than the 5% benchmark suggested by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer screening. To maximize FIT success, there needs to be a preoccupation with failure at the system level that results in reducing the number of FIT tests that are rejected. Completing a stool test independently at home is not easy. The medical system needs to help and support individuals in completing the test every step of the way. Suggestions include patient related tips such as labelling and mailing the tests. There are also suggestions for the ordering clinician including administrative tracking to notify clinicians when a FIT has not been performed or is rejected. Papers like this get us focused exactly where we need to be to improve FIT-based screening. See related article by Liu et al., p. 215.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk. METHODS: We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff VisionTM has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at ten hospitals and randomized into four groups: Group 1; 2xCC, Group 2; CC followed by EVC, Group 3; EVC followed CC and Group 4; 2xEVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients were randomized of which 661 patients (92.2%) had one and 646 (90.1%) patients had two completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1% [95%-CI;36.1-46.3] versus 35.5% [95%-CI;30.7-40.6], respectively, P=0.125), but EVC did reduced AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95%-CI;23.6-36.5] versus 17.9% [95%-CI;12.5-23.5], respectively, P=0.049). AMR of 2xCC compared to 2xEVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95%-CI;19.3-33.9] versus 18.8% [95%-CI;13.9-24.8], respectively, P=0.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P=0.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.008) and region where colonoscopy was performed (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significant improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03418948.

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Optical Diagnosis: A Comprehensive Review of Its Role in Leave-In-Situ and Resect-and-Discard Strategies in Colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer screening plays a vital role in early detection and removal of precancerous adenomas, contributing to decreased mortality rates. Most polyps found during colonoscopies are small and unlikely to harbor advanced neoplasia or invasive cancer, leading to the development of "leave-in-situ" and "resect-and-discard" approaches. These strategies could lead to significant cost savings and efficiencies, but their implementation has been hampered by concerns around financial incentives, medical-legal risks, and local rules for tissue handling. This article reviews the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance the accuracy of polyp diagnosis through computer-aided diagnosis (CADx). While the adoption of CADx in optical biopsy has shown mixed results, it has the potential to significantly improve the management of colorectal polyps. Several studies reviewed in this article highlight the varied results of CADx in optical biopsy for colorectal polyps. Although artificial intelligence does not consistently outperform expert endoscopists, it has the potential to serve as a beneficial secondary reader, aiding in accurate optical diagnosis and increasing the confidence of the endoscopist. These studies indicate that although CADx holds great potential, it is yet to fully meet the performance thresholds necessary for clinical implementation.

What do 'false-positive' stool tests really mean? Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry.

We utilized the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to calculate false discovery rates (FDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) using three 'positive' colonoscopy definitions. Understanding the frequency of meaningful 'true positive' mt-sDNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) results can optimize the use of these colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests. We calculated FDR (positive stool test followed by negative colonoscopy divided by all positive stool tests) and PPV for mt-sDNA and FIT cohorts using the following definitions: 1) DeeP-C Study (CRC, adenomas/serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm, villous/High Grade Dysplasia); 2) < 10 year US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) follow-up: DeeP-C findings & ≥1 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) < 1 cm (with/without dysplasia) or ≥ 1 tubular adenomas < 1 cm. 3) Clinically Significant: DeeP-C + USMSTF + clinically significant serrated polyps: traditional serrated adenomas, SSPs, hyperplastic polyps (HPs) > 1 cm, and 5-9 mm proximal HPs. The sample included 549 mt-sDNA + and 410 FIT + and patients (mean age 66.4, 43.0% male). Using the most limited definition of positive colonoscopy, DeeP-C, FDR was 71.9% for mt-sDNA + and 81.7% for FIT +. Using the USMSTF definition, FDR decreased substantially: mt-sDNA+:33.2% and FIT+:47.6%. Adding all CSSPs resulted in the lowest FDR: mt-sDNA+:32.2% and FIT+:47.1%. Decreasing FDRs corresponded to increasing PPVs: mt-sDNA+:28.1% and FIT+:18.3% (DeeP-C definition) and mt-sDNA+:67.8% and FIT+:52.9% (DeeP-C + USMSTF + CSSP) (Table 1). FDRs decreased substantially when the definition of positive exams included all significant precancerous findings. These data present a comprehensive understanding of false positive outcomes at colonoscopies following positive stool tests, which to our knowledge is the first such analysis.

Higher Serrated Polyp Detection Rates Are Associated With Lower Risk of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and sessile serrated detection rates (SSLDRs). METHODS: We included patients with either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis in the NH State Cancer Registry. PCCRC was any CRC diagnosed ≥ 6 months after index examination. RESULTS: Of 26,901 patients, 162 were diagnosed with PCCRC. The hazard ratio for PCCRC was lowest for patients whose endoscopists had the highest SSLDR quintile (≥6%) (hazard ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.50). DISCUSSION: Endoscopists with higher SSLDRs had lower risks of PCCRC. These data validate SSLDR as a clinically relevant quality measure.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts.

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Risk of total metachronous advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy after detection of serrated lesions: a matched case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND : Serrated lesions are potential colorectal cancer precursors. This study evaluated the presence of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) at follow-up in patients with index serrated lesions compared with a matched cohort without serrated lesions. METHODS : Patients aged 45-74 years with serrated lesions were matched 2:1 by sex, age, synchronous polyps, and timing of index colonoscopy, to patients without serrated lesions. The primary outcome was T-MAN (advanced adenoma or high-risk serrated lesion) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included presence of T-MAN stratified by synchronous polyps and serrated lesion characteristics. RESULTS : 1425 patients were included (475 patients, 642 serrated lesions; 950 controls; median follow-up 2.9 versus 3.6 years). Patients with serrated lesions had greater risk of T-MAN than those without (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, 95 %CI 3.9-9.6). Patients with serrated lesions and high-risk adenoma (HRA) had higher risk of T-MAN than those with HRA alone (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.4-4.7); similarly, patients with serrated lesions plus low-risk adenoma (LRA) had higher risk than those with LRA alone (HR 7.0, 95 %CI 2.8-18.4), as did patients with serrated lesions without adenoma compared with no adenoma (HR 14.9, 95 %CI 6.5-34.0). Presence of proximal sessile serrated lesion (SSL; HR 9.3, 95 %CI 5.4-15.9), large SSL (HR 17.8, 95 %CI 7.4-43.3), and proximal large SSL (HR 25.0, 95 %CI 8.8-71.3), but not distal SSL, were associated with greater risk for T-MAN. CONCLUSION : Patients with serrated lesions had higher risk for T-MAN regardless of synchronous adenomas. Patients with serrated lesions and HRA, and those with large or proximal SSLs, were at greatest risk.

Serrated Polyp Yield at Colonoscopy in Patients with Positive FIT, Positive mt-sDNA, and Colonoscopy Only: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Stool-based screening with fecal immunochemical (FIT) or multitarget-stool DNA (mt-sDNA) tests is associated with increased colonoscopy polyp yield. mt-sDNA includes methylated markers, which improve detection of serrated polyps (SP) versus FIT. We compared SP detection in colonoscopies performed for positive FIT or mt-sDNA tests, as well as in colonoscopies without a preceding stool test, using the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, a comprehensive statewide population-based registry. METHODS: Across the three groups, we compared the frequency of clinically relevant SPs (CRSP: sessile SPs, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas). We also compared SP size, histology, number, and bulk (combined sizes). RESULTS: Our sample included 560 mt-sDNA+ (age ± SD: 66.5 ± 7.9), 414 FIT+ (age ± SD: 66.3 ± 8.8), and 59,438 colonoscopy-only patients (age ± SD: 61.7 ± 8.0). mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely to have a higher yield of CRSPs and CRSP bulk than FIT+ (P < 0.0001) or colonoscopy-only patients (P < 0.0001). More mt-sDNA+ patients had CRSPs without large adenomas or colorectal cancers (17.9% vs. 9.9% of FIT+ and 8% of colonoscopy-only patients). After adjusting for synchronous large adenomas, colorectal cancers, and other risk factors, mt-sDNA+ patients were more likely (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.18-2.85) than FIT+ patients to have CRSPs. CONCLUSIONS: mt-sDNA+ patients had a higher SP yield than FIT+ or colonoscopy-only patients, particularly in the absence of synchronous large adenomas or colorectal cancer. IMPACT: Our results suggest that screening with mt-sDNA tests could improve colorectal cancer screening by identifying more patients at increased risk from the serrated pathway.