Endoscopic versus histological characterisation of polyps during screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: As screening colonoscopy becomes more widespread, the costs for histopathological assessment of resected polyps are rising correspondingly. Reference centres have published highly accurate results for endoscopic polyp classification. Therefore, it has been proposed that, for smaller polyps, the differential diagnosis that guides follow-up recommendations could be based on endoscopy alone. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to prospectively assess whether the high accuracy for endoscopic polyp diagnosis as reported by reference centres can be reproduced in routine screening colonoscopy. DESIGN: Ten experienced private practice endoscopists had initial training in pit patterns. Then they assessed all polyps detected during 1069 screening colonoscopies. Patients (46% men; mean age 63 years) were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with conventional or latest generation HDTV instruments. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of in vivo polyp assessment (adenomatous vs hyperplastic). Secondary outcome measures were differences between endoscopes and reliability of image-based follow-up recommendations; a blinded post hoc analysis of polyp photographs was also performed. RESULTS: 675 polyps were assessed (461 adenomatous, 214 hyperplastic). Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of in vivo diagnoses were 76.6%, 78.1% and 73.4%; size of adenomas and endoscope withdrawal time significantly influenced accuracy. Image-based recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance were correct in only 69.5% of cases. Post hoc analysis of polyp photographs did not improve accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice, endoscopic classification of polyp type is not accurate enough to abandon histopathological assessment and use of latest generation colonoscopes does not improve this. Image-based surveillance recommendations after polypectomy would consequently not meet guideline requirements. TRIALREGNO: NCT01297712.

Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3).

BACKGROUND: Screening colonoscopy (SC) outcome quality is best determined by the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The substantial variability in the ADRs between endoscopists may reflect different skills, experience and/or equipment. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the potential factors that may influence ADR variance, including case volume. DESIGN: 12,134 consecutive SCs (mean age 64.5 years, 47% men) from 21 Berlin private-practice colonoscopists were prospectively studied during 18 months. The data were analysed using a two-level mixed linear model to adequately address the characteristics of patients and colonoscopists. The ADR was regressed after considering the following factors: sex, age, bowel cleanliness, NSAID intake, annual SC case volume, lifetime experience, instrument withdrawal times, instrument generations used, and the number of annual continuing medical education (CME) meetings attended by the physician. The case volume was also retrospectively analysed from the 2007 national SC registry data (312,903 colonoscopies and 1004 colonoscopists). RESULTS: The patient factors that correlated with the ADR were sex, age (p<0.001) and low quality of bowel preparation (p=0.005). The factors that were related to the colonoscopists were the number of CME meetings attended (p=0.012) and instrument generation (p=0.001); these factors accounted for approximately 40% of the interphysician variability. Within a narrow range (6-11 min), the withdrawal time was not correlated with the ADR. Annual screening case volume did not correlate with the ADR, and this finding was confirmed by the German registry data. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome quality of screening colonoscopies is mainly influenced by individual colonoscopist factors (ie, CME activities) and instrument quality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trial Gov Registration number: NCT00860665.

Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The German screening colonoscopy program is accompanied by a central registry that records the main outcome quality indicators, namely colonoscopy completion rate, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and complication rate. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of these registry data by comparing them with data from a prospective quality assurance study based on a self-reporting audit and patient feedback of screening colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The completeness of registry information was analyzed by comparing it with prospective data gathered by audit and patient feedback in a previous quality assurance study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00860665) between October 2006 and March 2008. The main outcome parameters were colonoscopy completion rate, ADR, and complication rate. Complications were recorded in three steps in the audit study using case report forms (immediate and subsequent documentation by physicians [CRF-1 and CRF-2], and patient follow-up [CRF-3]), but were documented in the registry without differentiation. RESULTS: A total of 12 134 individuals (mean age 64.5 years; 47 % men) who underwent screening colonoscopy at 19 private practices in Berlin over the 18-month period were included in the audit study. Patient feedback was obtained for 90.1 %. A total of 12 150 cases had been recorded in the registry by the same private practices during the same period. Colonoscopy completion rate and ADR data were comparable in the audit study and registry (completion rate 98.2 % vs. 97.7 %; ADR 21.0 % vs. 20.5 %). However, compared with the registry data, the complication rate was 3.1-fold higher in the audit (0.46 % vs. 0.15 %; P < 0.001), and double (0.33 % vs. 0.15 %; P < 0.05) when patient feedback was not included. CONCLUSIONS: Of the screening colonoscopy quality parameters, colonoscopy completion rate and ADR, but not complication rates, were reliably documented in the German national screening colonoscopy registry. Data on complications need to be appropriately standardized and audited in order to be used for credentialing and benchmarking purposes.

Live image processing does not increase adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison between FICE and conventional imaging (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 5, BECOP-5).

OBJECTIVES: Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy (FICE) is a post-processing imaging technique for increasing contrast of mucosa and mucosal lesions that might lead to improvement in colonic adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Previous studies on similar contrast-enhancing techniques as well as on dye staining have yielded variable and conflicting results. This large randomized trial was undertaken to determine whether FICE technology enhances adenoma detection rate (ADR). METHODS: In a prospective study performed in a multicenter private practice and hospital setting, involving 8 examiners with substantial lifetime experience (>10,000 colonoscopies each), 1,318 patients (men 46.7%, women 53.3%; mean age 59.05 years) were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with either FICE or white light imaging on instrument withdrawal. Of the colonoscopies, 68% were screening and 32% were diagnostic examinations. The primary outcome measure was the ADR (i.e., number of adenomas/total number of patients). RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups in terms of general ADR (0.28 in both groups), the total number of adenomas (184 vs. 183), or detection of subgroups of adenomas. The rate of identification of hyperplastic polyps was also the same in both groups (127 vs. 121; P=0.67). The results were the same for both the screening and the diagnostic colonoscopy subgroups. Withdrawal time was the same in both groups (8.4 vs. 8.3 min, P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This large randomized trial could not show any objective advantage of the FICE technique over conventional high-resolution endoscopy in terms of improved ADR.