AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Colonoscopy Quality Monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: High-quality colonoscopy is paramount for colorectal cancer prevention. Since 2009, endoscopists at our institution have received quarterly report cards summarizing individual colonoscopy quality indicators. We have previously shown that implementing this intervention was associated with short-term improvement in adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the long-term effect of continued monitoring on colonoscopy quality is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively administered quarterly colonoscopy quality report cards at the Roudebush Veteran's Affairs Medical Center between April 1, 2012, and August 31, 2019. The anonymized reports included individual endoscopists' ADRs, cecal intubation rates, and withdrawal times. Analyses were performed to determine slopes over time for each quality metric by physician and assess for differences based on whether ADRs were calculated quarterly or yearly. RESULTS: Data from the report cards of 17 endoscopists who had performed 24,361 colonoscopies were included. The mean quarterly ADR (±SD) was 51.7% (±11.7%) and mean yearly ADR was 47.2% (±13.8%). There was a small increase in overall ADR based on quarterly and yearly measurements (slope + 0.6%, P = 0.02; and slope +2.7%, P < 0.001, respectively), but no significant change in individual ADRs, cecal intubation rates, or withdrawal times. Analysis of SD of ADRs showed no significant difference between yearly and quarterly measurements ( P = 0.064). Individual endoscopists' ADR SD differences between yearly and quarterly measurements ranged from -4.7% to +6.8%. DISCUSSION: Long-term colonoscopy quality monitoring paralleled stable improvements in overall ADR. For endoscopists with baseline high ADR, frequent monitoring and reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics may not be necessary.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Mortality After Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Importance: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) refers to colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found and is reflective of colonoscopy quality at the individual and system levels. Colonoscopy is widely performed in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, but the prevalence of PCCRC and its associated mortality are unknown. Objective: To examine PCCRC prevalence and its all-cause mortality (ACM) and CRC-specific mortality (CSM) within the VA health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used VA-Medicare administrative data to identify 29 877 veterans aged 50 to 85 years with newly diagnosed CRC between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2013. Patients whose colonoscopy occurred less than 6 months before CRC diagnosis with no other colonoscopy within the previous 36 months were categorized as having detected CRC (DCRC). Those who had a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC between 6 and 36 months before CRC diagnosis were categorized as having postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC-3y). A third group included patients with CRC and no colonoscopy within the prior 36 months. The final analysis of the data was performed in September 2022. Exposures: Prior receipt of colonoscopy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards regression (with censoring, last follow-up December 31, 2018) analyses were conducted to compare PCCRC-3y and DCRC for 5-year ACM and CSM after CRC diagnosis. Results: Of 29 877 patients with CRC (median [IQR] age, 67 [60-75] years; 29 353 [98%] male; 5284 [18%] Black, 23 971 [80%] White, and 622 [2%] other), 1785 (6%) were classified as having PCCRC-3y and 21 811 (73%) as having DCRC. The 5-year ACM rates were 46% vs 42% for patients with PCCRC-3y vs patients with DCRC. The 5-year CSM rates were 26% vs 25% for patients with PCCRC-3y vs patients with DCRC. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, there was no significant difference in ACM and CSM between patients with PCCRC-3y (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11; P = .18) and patients with DCRC (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.13; P = .42). However, compared with patients with DCRC, patients with no prior colonoscopy had significantly higher ACM (aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.70-1.82; P < .001) and CSM (aHR, 2.22; 95% CI, 2.12-2.32; P < .001). Compared with patients with DCRC, patients with PCCRC-3y had significantly lower odds of having undergone colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.43-0.53; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that PCCRC-3y constituted 6% of CRCs in the VA system, which is similar to other settings. Compared with patients with CRC detected by colonoscopy, those with PCCRC-3y have comparable ACM and CSM.