At What Age Should We Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening? When Is Enough, Enough?

There is strong evidence that colorectal cancer screening can reduce both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Guidelines recommend screening for individuals age 45 to 75 years, but are less certain about the benefits after age 75 years. Dalmat and colleagues provide evidence that individuals with a prior negative colonoscopy 10 years or more prior to reaching age 76 to 85 years, had a low risk of colorectal cancer, and would be less likely to benefit from further screening. It is important to note that this study population did not include individuals with a family history of colon cancer or a personal history of having high-risk adenomas. These data suggest that a negative colonoscopy can be an effective risk-stratification tool when discussing further screening with elderly patients. See related article by Dalmat et al., p. 37.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: observational study in a supplementary health system.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer is responsible for 9.4% of cancer deaths, and low polyp detection rate and cecal intubation rate increase the risks of interval colorectal cancer. Despite several population studies that address colonoscopy quality measures, there is still a shortage of these studies in Latin America. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators in colonoscopy, enabling future strategies to improve colorectal cancer prevention. METHODS: An observational retrospective study, in which all colonoscopies performed in 11 hospitals were evaluated through a review of medical records. Information such as procedure indication, colorectal polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, quality of colonic preparation, and immediate adverse events were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: In 17,448 colonoscopies performed by 86 endoscopists, 57.9% were in patients aged 50 to 74 years old. Colon preparation was adequate in 94.4% procedures, with rates of cecal intubation and polyp detection of 94 and 36.6%, respectively. Acute adverse events occurred in 0.2%. In 53.9%, high-definition imaging equipment was used. The procedure location, colon preparation and high-definition equipment influenced polyp detection rates (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The extraction and analysis of electronic medical records showed that there are opportunities for improvement in colonoscopy quality indicators in the participating hospitals.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric. Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017. Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Combination of Enhanced Instructions Improve Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Colonoscopist-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate bowel preparation is highly important for the efficacy of colonoscopy; however, up to one-third of patients do not accomplish adequate bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of the combination of enhanced instruction on the quality of bowel preparation and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: This was a colonoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized trial. SETTINGS: All patients received regular instructions for bowel preparation. Patients were randomly assigned to the control, telephone reeducation, and combined enhanced instruction groups. PATIENTS: Outpatients aged 19 to 75 years scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were randomly assigned to the combined enhanced instruction (n = 104), telephone reeducation (n = 101), and control groups (n = 106). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the adequate bowel preparation rate was higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups (92.3% vs 82.2% vs 76.4%, p = 0.007). The rate of compliance with the instructions was significantly higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups. Method of education was associated with proper bowel preparation (adjusted OR 17.46; p < 0.001 for combined enhanced instruction relative to control). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study conducted in Korea. CONCLUSIONS: Combined enhanced instruction as an adjunct to regular instructions much improved the quality of bowel preparation and patients' adherence to the preparation instructions. The combined enhanced instruction method could be the best option for bowel preparation instruction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673. LA COMBINACIN DE INSTRUCCIONES MEJORADAS, INCREMENTA LA CALIDAD DE LA PREPARACIN INTESTINAL ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO, CONTROLADO, ALEATORIO Y CIEGO PARA EL COLONOSCOPISTA: ANTECEDENTES:La preparación adecuada del intestino es muy importante para la eficacia de la colonoscopia; sin embargo, hasta un tercio de los pacientes no logran buenos resutlados.OBJETIVO:Investigar el impacto de la combinación de instrucciónes claras en la calidad de la preparación intestinal y su impacto en los resultados clínicos.DISEÑO:Trabajo aleatorio, prospectivo y ciego para el colonoscopista.AJUSTES:Los pacientes recibieron instrucciones periódicas para la preparación intestinal. Fueron asignados aleatoriamente al grupo control, educación telefónica y de instrucción mejoradas.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes ambulatorios de 19 a 75 años programados para ser sometidos a colonoscopia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El principal resultado fue una adecuada preparación intestinal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 311 pacientes fueron asignados al azar a la instrucción mejorada combinada (n = 104), reeducación telefónica (n = 101) y grupo de control (n = 106). El análisis estadístico mostró que la tasa de preparación intestinal adecuada fue mayor en el grupo combinado de instrucción mejorada que en los grupos de reeducación telefónica y control (92,3% vs 82,2% vs 76,4%, p = 0,007). La tasa de cumplimiento de las instrucciones fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de instrucción mejorada combinada que en los otros. El método de educación se asoció con una preparación intestinal adecuada (razón de posibilidades ajustada de 17,46; p <0,001 para la instrucción mejorada combinada en relación con el control.LIMITACIONES:Estudio en un solo centro realizado en Corea.CONCLUSIONES:La instrucción mejorada combinada como complemento de las instrucciones regulares mejoró mucho la calidad de la preparación intestinal y la adherencia de los pacientes a las instrucciones de preparación. El método de instrucción mejorado combinado podría ser la mejor opción para la instrucción de preparación intestinal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673.

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. / EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

Serrated polyps and polyposis of the colon: a brief review for surgeon endoscopists.

Serrated polyps (SPs) were once considered benign, clinically unimportant lesions. However, it is now recognized that through the serrated neoplasia pathway (SNP), SPs play a role in the development of 15%-30% of cases of colorectal cancers (CRC). Furthermore, a high proportion of postcolonoscopy CRCs are believed to arise from SNP. Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated lesions, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, traditionally serrated adenomas, and unclassified serrated adenoma, each with a distinct morphological and molecular profile. Despite improved understanding, SPs remain a clinical challenge owing to evolving terminology, frequent pathologic misclassification, endoscopic underdetection, and high rates of incomplete removal. Surgeon endoscopists and surgeons who perform colorectal procedures will undoubtedly come across patients with SPs, and this paper summarizes some of the clinical challenges they will encounter. We also discuss the diagnosis and management of patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS).

A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time is still a controversial topic. While several studies demonstrate that longer withdrawal time improves adenoma detection rate, others have contradicted these findings. METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to January 2021 and included studies reporting comparison of the two cohorts-(i) ≥ 6 but less than 9 min of colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and (ii) ≥ 9 min of CWT. The outcome measures were the following: (i) adenoma detection rate (ADR), (ii) advanced ADR, and (iii) sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SDR). The meta-analysis was performed, and the statistics were two-tailed. RESULTS: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria after a thorough search of the literature was completed. The analysis revealed that ≥ 9 min of CWT had significantly higher odds of adenoma detection as compared with 6-9 min of CWT (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.82; I2  = 93.7). Additionally, a significantly higher odds of sessile serrated adenoma detection (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22; I2  = 0) and a trend towards higher odds of advanced adenoma detection (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.95, I2  = 90) were seen with CWT of at least 9 min when compared with 6-9 min of CWT. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis analysis provides further evidence that at least 9 min of CWT cohort had significantly higher ADR and SDR as compared with the at least 6 min but less than 9 min of cohort.

Current status and limitations of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) using deep learning methods for polyp detection (CADe) and characterization (CADx) is on the verge of clinical application. CADe already implied its potential use in randomized controlled trials. Further efforts are needed to take CADx to the next level of development. AIM: This work aims to give an overview of the current status of AI in colonoscopy, without going into too much technical detail. METHODS: A literature search to identify important studies exploring the use of AI in colonoscopy was performed. RESULTS: This review focuses on AI performance in screening colonoscopy summarizing the first prospective trials for CADe, the state of research in CADx as well as current limitations of those systems and legal issues.

Late and Long-term Symptom Management in Colorectal Cancer Survivorship.

CASE SUMMARY: A 59-year-old previously healthy, asymptomatic man initially presented for his first screening colonoscopy. At this time, a friable, partially obstructing tumor was encountered in his proximal rectum. Final workup demonstrated a mrT2N1M0 upper rectal cancer. The patient went on to successfully complete total neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and was taken to the operating room for an uncomplicated robotic-assisted low anterior resection with primary anastomosis. His final pathology revealed an ypT2N1M0 rectal cancer, and he was subsequently followed in surveillance per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. At long-term follow-up visits he continued to report significant depressive symptoms and functional impairment. Despite aggressive medical management with fiber supplementation and antidiarrheal medications, the patient continued to struggle with bowel movement frequency and urgency. He reported having 4 to 6 clustered bowel movements during the day and 1 to 2 stools at night that significantly limited his ability to perform normal day-to-day activities.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer.

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Negative Effects of Endoscopists' Fatigue on Colonoscopy Quality on 34,022 Screening Colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is still considerable controversy surrounding the relationship between fatigue of endoscopists and the quality of colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to comprehensively explore the association between fatigue and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). METHODS: The mixed effects logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between fatigue- related factors including procedure order, session of procedures and the day of week and ADR as well as CIR. RESULTS: When controlling for confounders, the day of week (Monday as reference, Friday, p=0.022; weekends, p=0.015) and session of procedures (P<0.001) were significantly associated with ADR while procedure order (<5 as reference, 6-10, p<0.001; >10, p=0.001) and session of procedures (p=0.004) were independent predictors for CIR. Additionally, there was a significant downward trend on ADR and CIR with the approaching of weekends (p=0.005) and increasing procedure orders (p<0.001), respectively. In the subgroup analysis stratified by gender, age and workload intensity, significant lower ADR was found in the afternoon in all subgroups (male, p<0.001; female, p=0.005; <40 years, p<0.001; ≥40 years, p=0.020; intensity<50 per month, p=0.017; intensity≥50 per month, p<0.001) but the downward trend on ADR as the week progressed was only found in endoscopists with male gender (p=0.011), age<40 (p=0.027) and high workload intensity (p=0.003). Moreover, a significant downward trend on CIR as the procedure order increased was found in all subgroups except endoscopists with age≥40 (male, p=0.005; female, p<0.001; <40 years, p<0.001; intensity<50 per month, p=0.001; intensity≥50 per month, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopies in the afternoon will affect ADR negatively while increasing procedure order will cause a lower CIR. Importantly, the significant negative influence of Friday and weekends on ADR was first discovered in this study. Moreover, endoscopists with female gender and advanced age (≥40) but not high workload intensity showed superiority in resistance of fatigue caused by the end of the week and increasing daily procedures.

Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Colonoscopy Completion After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety Net System.

Importance: The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), relies on colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal results, but in safety net systems and federally qualified health centers, in which FIT is frequently used, colonoscopy completion within 1 year of an abnormal result rarely exceeds 50%. Clinician-identified factors in follow-up of abnormal FIT results are understudied and could lead to more effective interventions to address this issue. Objective: To describe clinician-identified barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal FIT results in a safety net health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted using semistructured key informant interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) and staff members in a large safety net health care system in Washington state. Eligible clinicians were recruited through all-staff meetings and clinic medical directors. Interviews were conducted from February to December 2020 through face-to-face interactions or digital meeting platforms. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively using a content analysis approach. Data were analyzed from September through December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result were identified by PCPs and staff members. Results: Among 21 participants, there were 10 PCPs and 11 staff members; 20 participants provided demographic information. The median (interquartile range) age was 38.5 (33.0-51.5) years, 17 (85.0%) were women, and 9 participants (45.0%) spent more than 75% of their working time engaging in patient care. All participants identified social determinants of health, organizational factors, and patient cognitive factors as barriers to colonoscopy completion. Participants suggested that existing resources that addressed these factors facilitated colonoscopy completion but were insufficient to meet national follow-up colonoscopy goals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, responses of interviewed PCPs and staff members suggested that the barriers to colonoscopy completion in a safety net health system may be modifiable. These findings suggest that interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal FIT results should be informed by clinician-identified factors to address multilevel challenges to colonoscopy completion.

New risk stratification after colorectal polypectomy reduces burden of surveillance without increasing mortality.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 postpolypectomy surveillance guideline update of European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy defines a more restrictive group of individuals in need for surveillance 3 years after colonoscopy. AIM: The aim of this cohort study was to validate the new guideline recommendation. METHODS: Based on a national quality assurance program, we compared the 2020 risk group definition with the previous 2013 recommendations for their strength of association with (1) colorectal cancer death, and (2) all-cause death. RESULTS: A total of 265,608 screening colonoscopies were included in the study. Mean age was 61.1 years (SD ±9.0), and 50.6% were women. During a mean follow-up of 59.3 months (SD ±35.0), 170 CRC deaths and 7723 deaths of any cause were identified. 62.4% of colonoscopies were negative and 4.9% were assigned to surveillance after 3 years according to the 2020 guidelines versus 10.4% following the 2013 guidelines, which corresponds to a relative reduction in colonoscopies by 47%. The strength of association with CRC mortality was markedly higher with the 2020 surveillance group as compared to the 2013 guidelines (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.62-4.03 vs. HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.13-2.62), while the magnitude of association with CRC mortality for low risk individuals was lower (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83-1.63 vs. 1.25, 95% CI 0.88-1.76). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the updated guidelines reduces the burden of surveillance colonoscopies by 47% while preserving the efficacy of surveillance in preventing CRC mortality.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.

Benchmarking Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy: Results From a US-Based Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is highly variable across practices, and national or population-based estimates are not available. Our aim was to study the ADR, variability of rates over time, and factors associated with detection rates of ADR in a national sample of patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: We used colonoscopies submitted to the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. registry from 2014 to 2018 on adults aged 50-89 years. We used hierarchical logistic models to study factors associated with ADR. RESULTS: A total of 2,646,833 colonoscopies were performed by 1,169 endoscopists during the study period. The average ADR for screening colonoscopies per endoscopist was 36.80% (SD 10.21), 44.08 (SD 10.98) in men and 31.20 (SD 9.65) in women. Adjusted to the US population, the ADR was 39.08%. There was a significant increase in ADR from screening colonoscopies over the study period from 33.93% in 2014 to 38.12% in 2018. DISCUSSION: The average ADR from a large national US sample standardized to the US population is 39.05% and has increased over time.

Post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy: Comparison of the updated guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recently, three updated guidelines for post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance (PPCS) have been published. These guidelines are based on a comprehensive summary of the literature, while some recommendations are similar, different surveillance intervals are recommended after detection of specific types of polyps. AIM: In this review, we aimed to compare and contrast these recommendations. METHODS: The updated guidelines for PPCS were reviewed and the recommendations were compared. RESULTS: For patients with 1-4 adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or 1-4 serrated polyps <10 mm without dysplasia, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE) (BSG/ACPGBI/PHE) guidelines do not recommend colonoscopic surveillance and instead recommend that the participate in routine CRC screening program (typically based on the fecal immunochemical test), while the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonoscopies 7-10 years after diagnosis of 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm and 3-5 years for 3-4 tubular adenomas of the same size. The USMSTF define adenomas with tubulovillous or villous histology as high-risk adenomas; thus, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after 3 years. However, the ESGE and BSG do not consider such histology as a criterion for repeating colonoscopy at this short interval. For patients with 1-2 sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) <10 mm and those with 3-4 SSPs <10 mm, the USMSTF recommends surveillance colonosocopy after 5-10 and 3-5 years, respectively.