Audit of hemostatic clip use after colorectal polyp resection in an academic endoscopy unit.

Background and study aims Prophylactic closure of endoscopic resection defects reduces delayed hemorrhage after resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm that are located proximal to the splenic flexure and removed by electrocautery. The risk of delayed hemorrhage after cold (without electrocautery) resection is much lower, and prophylactic clip closure after cold resection is generally unnecessary. The aim of this study was to audit clip use after colorectal polyp resection in routine outpatient colonoscopies at two outpatient centers within an academic medical center. Patients referred for resection of known lesions were excluded. Patients and methods Retrospective chart analysis was performed as part of a quality review of physician adherence to screening and post-polypectomy surveillance intervals. Results Among 3784 total lesions resected cold by 29 physicians, clips were placed after cold resection on 41.7% of 12 lesions ≥ 20 mm, 19.3% of 207 lesions 10 to 19 mm in size, and 2.8% of 3565 lesions 1 to 9 mm in size. Three physicians placed clips after cold resection of lesions 1 to 9 mm in 18.8%, 25.5%, and 45.0% of cases. These physicians accounted for 8.1% of 1- to 9-mm resections, but 69.7% of clips placed in this size range. Electrocautery was used for 3.1% of all resections. Clip placement overall after cold resection (3.9%) was much lower than after resection with electrocautery (71.1%), but 62.4% of all clips placed were after cold resection. Conclusions Audits of clip use in an endoscopy practice can reveal surprising findings, including high and variable rates of unnecessary use after cold resection. Audit can potentially reduce unnecessary costs, carbon emissions, and plastic waste.

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.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Establishment of Standards for the Referral of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps: An International Expert Consensus Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centres for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of our study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of LNPCP for potential ER. METHODS: A Delphi methodology was employed to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and three rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus, with quantitative and qualitative data analysed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements ranged from 7.04 to 9.29 out of 10, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis by continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSION: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. METHODS: We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. RESULTS: There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist.

BACKGROUND: Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste. METHODS: A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction. RESULTS: 677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste.

The Environmental Impact of Gastrointestinal Procedures: A Prospective Study of Waste Generation, Energy Consumption, and Auditing in an Endoscopy Unit.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures are critical for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of GI disorders. However, like the procedures in other medical disciplines, they are a source of environmental waste generation and energy consumption. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on total waste generation, energy consumption, and the role of intraprocedural inventory audit of a single tertiary care academic endoscopy unit over a 2-month period (May-June 2022). Detailed data on items used were collected, including procedure type (esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy), accessories, intravenous tubing, biopsy jars, linen, and personal protective equipment use. Data on endoscope reprocessing-related waste generation and energy use in the endoscopy unit (equipment, lights, and computers) were also collected. We used an endoscopy staff-guided auditing and review of the items used during procedures to determine potentially recyclable items going to landfill waste. The waste generated was stratified into biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable items. RESULTS: A total of 450 consecutive procedures were analyzed for total waste management (generation and reprocessing) and energy consumption. The total waste generated during the study period was 1398.6 kg (61.6% directly going to landfill, 33.3% biohazard waste, and 5.1% sharps), averaging 3.03 kg/procedure. The average waste directly going to landfill was 219 kg per 100 procedures. The estimated total annual waste generation approximated the size of 2 football fields (1-foot-high layered waste). Endoscope reprocessing generated 194 gallons of liquid waste per day, averaging 13.85 gallons per procedure. Total energy consumption in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW·h energy per day; for every 100 procedures, amounting to 1200 miles of distance traveled by an average fuel efficiency car. The estimated carbon footprint for every 100 GI procedures was 1501 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (= 1680 lbs of coal burned), which would require 1.8 acres of forests to sequester. The recyclable waste audit and review demonstrated that 20% of total waste consisted of potentially recyclable items (8.6 kg/d) that could be avoided by appropriate waste segregation of these items. CONCLUSIONS: On average, every 100 GI endoscopy procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy) are associated with 303 kg of solid waste and 1385 gallons of liquid waste generation, and 1980 kW·h energy consumption. Potentially recyclable materials account for 20% of the total waste. These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and decrease landfill waste and water waste toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units.

Lack of Effectiveness of Computer Aided Detection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Benefits of computer-aided detection (CADe) in detecting colorectal neoplasia were shown in many randomized trials in which endoscopists' behavior was strictly controlled. However, the effect of CADe on endoscopists' performance in less-controlled setting is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses were aimed at clarifying benefits and harms of using CADe in real-world colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from inception to August 20, 2023. We included nonrandomized studies that compared the effectiveness between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy. Two investigators independently extracted study data and quality. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed utilizing risk ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight studies were included, comprising 9782 patients (4569 with CADe and 5213 without CADe). Regarding benefits, there was a difference in neither adenoma detection rate (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.28) nor mean adenomas per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.32) between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy, respectively. Regarding harms, there was no difference in the mean non-neoplastic lesions per colonoscopy (8 studies included for analysis; 0.52 vs 0.47; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.34) and withdrawal time (6 studies included for analysis; 14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; MD, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18 to 1.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity, and all outcomes were graded with a very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: CADe in colonoscopies neither improves the detection of colorectal neoplasia nor increases burden of colonoscopy in real-world, nonrandomized studies, questioning the generalizability of the results of randomized trials.

Endoscopist Adenoma Per Colonoscopy Detection Rates and Risk for Post Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Data From New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) since it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and post colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to examine APC and PCCRC risk. METHODS: We included NHCR patients with an index exam and at least one follow up event, either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed > 6 months after an index exam. The exposure variable was endoscopist specific APC quintiles of 0.25, 0.40, 50 and 0.70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlling for age, sex, year of index exam, index findings, bowel preparation and having more than 1 surveillance exam. RESULTS: In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n=178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs <0.25 (Reference) (0.25-<0.40:HR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.22-0.56;0.40-<0.50: HR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.49; 0.50-<0.70: HR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; and ≥0.70: HR=0.19, 95% CI: 0.09-0.37). When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC < 0.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC > 0.50 (HR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists, 1/5th (32/152; 21.1%), had an ADR >25 but an APC <0.50. DISCUSSION: Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in exams 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 ADR > 25%.

Frequency of serrated polyposis syndrome recognition by community endoscopists.

Background and study aims Some data indicate serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is underdiagnosed. We determined the frequency of SPS diagnosis by community endoscopists prior to referral to a tertiary center. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of SPS patients at a tertiary academic hospital. There were 212 patients who were referred to our center for resection of one or more lesions detected at a prior colonoscopy and who had records available that allowed determination of whether SPS was diagnosed before referral. Results Only 25 of 212 patients (11.8%) had a diagnosis or suspicion of a polyposis syndrome prior to referral, and only 12 patients (5.7%) had a specific SPS diagnosis made prior to referral. Among 187 patients diagnosed at our center, 39 had sufficient serrated lesions removed and documented in outside records to meet SPS criteria prior to referral, but the diagnosis was not made by the referring physician despite adequate numbers of lesions resected. The remaining cases required lesions removed at our center to meet SPS diagnostic criteria. Limitations were a single center, single expert endoscopist. Conclusions SPS is the most common colorectal polyposis syndrome, but it remains underdiagnosed by community endoscopists. Underdiagnosis may contribute to post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in patients with SPS.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

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.

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.

Characterization of endoscopic features and histology of a distinct mucosal transition zone on the ileocecal valve (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We have endoscopically encountered a zone of transitional mucosa between the colonic and ileal mucosa located in a 3- to 10-mm-wide ring around the ileocecal valve (ICV) orifice. We aimed to describe the features of the ICV transitional zone mucosa. METHODS: We used videos and photographs from normal ICVs and biopsy samples from normal colonic mucosa, transitional zone mucosa, and normal ileal mucosa to characterize the endoscopic and histologic features of the ICV transitional zone mucosa. RESULTS: The ICV transitional zone is identifiable on every ICV without a circumferential adenoma or inflammation that obliterates the zone. The zone is characterized endoscopically by an absence of villi, which distinguishes it from the ileal mucosa, but the pits are more tubular and with more prominent blood vessels compared with normal colonic mucosa. Histologically, the villi of the transitional zone are blunted, and the amount of lymphoid tissue is intermediate between the colonic mucosa and ileal mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first description of the normal transitional zone of mucosa on the ICV. This zone has unique endoscopic features that should be recognized by colonoscopists and that can potentially create difficulty in identifying the margins of adenomas located on the ICV.

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.

Many quality indicators have been proposed for colonoscopy, but most colonoscopists and endoscopy groups focus on measuring the adenoma detection rate and the cecal intubation rate. Use of proper screening and surveillance intervals is another accepted key indicator but it is seldom evaluated in clinical practice. Bowel preparation efficacy and polyp resection skills are areas that are emerging as potential key or priority indicators. This review summarizes and provides an update on key performance indicators for colonoscopy quality.