Search

Background: Society guidelines on colorectal dysplasia screening, surveillance, and endoscopic management in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are complex, and physician adherence to them is suboptimal. We aimed to evaluate the use of ChatGPT, a large language model, in generating accurate guideline-based recommendations for colorectal dysplasia screening, surveillance, and endoscopic management in IBD in line with European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) guidelines., Methods: 30 clinical scenarios in the form of free text were prepared and presented to three separate sessions of ChatGPT and to eight gastroenterologists (four IBD specialists and four non-IBD gastroenterologists). Two additional IBD specialists subsequently assessed all responses provided by ChatGPT and the eight gastroenterologists, judging their accuracy according to ECCO guidelines., Results: ChatGPT had a mean correct response rate of 87.8%. Among the eight gastroenterologists, the mean correct response rates were 85.8% for IBD experts and 89.2% for non-IBD experts. No statistically significant differences in accuracy were observed between ChatGPT and all gastroenterologists ( P =0.95), or between ChatGPT and the IBD experts and non-IBD expert gastroenterologists, respectively ( P =0.82)., Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of language models in enhancing guideline adherence regarding colorectal dysplasia in IBD. Further investigation of additional resources and prospective evaluation in real-world settings are warranted., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Improvements in disease management, as well as endoscopic technology and quality, have dramatically changed the way in which we conceptualize and manage inflammatory bowel disease-related dysplasia over the past 20 years. Based on evolving literature, we propose a conceptual model and best practice advice statements for the prevention, detection, and management of colorectal dysplasia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the American Gastroenterological Association membership. It underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention., Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC., Methods: It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR., Results: 5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91-1.36; p = 0.306)., Conclusion: OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.

Background: Positive family history is a risk factor for development of colorectal cancer. Despite numerous studies on the topic, the absolute risk in patients with a positive family history remains unclear and therefore studies are lacking to validate non-invasive screening methods in individuals with positive family history., Aim: To quantify the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a positive family history., Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed using PubMed from January 1955 until November 2017, EMBASE from 1947 until 2018, and Cochrane Library without date restrictions. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A meta-analysis of Mantel-Haenzel relative risks was performed using the random effects model. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to score the quality of selected papers. Funnel plot and Egger's regression test was performed to detect publication bias. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing Asian and non-Asian studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to rule out the effect of the timing of the study, overall quality, the main outcome and the effect of each individual study in overall result., Results: Forty-six out of 3390 studies, including 906981 patients were included in the final analysis. 41 of the included studies were case-control and 5 were cohort. A positive family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives was associated with significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer with a relative risk of 1.87 (95%CI: 1.68-2.09; P < 0.00001). Cochrane Q test was significant ( P < 0.00001, I 2 = 90%). Egger's regression test showed asymmetry in the funnel plot and therefore the Trim and Fill method was used which confirmed the validity of the results. There was no difference between Asian versus non-Asian studies. Results remained robust in sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: Individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer are 1.87 times more likely to develop colorectal cancer. Screening guidelines should pay specific attention to individuals with positive family history and further studies need to be done on validating current screening methods or developing new modalities in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Yaghoobi M’s research is partly supported by an Internal Career Award by the Department of Medicine, McMaster University.

Aim: To demonstrate the quality improvement associated with the implementation of a specialist family history of bowel cancer service in secondary care., Method: The following outcomes were assessed: (1) adherence to the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance of individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC); (2) adherence to the revised Bethesda criteria for the identification of CRC patients with suspected Lynch syndrome; (3) identification of inherited syndromes with increased CRC risk; and (4) colonoscopic adenoma detection rate. Data were collected for a 21-month period before and after the establishment of this service for all patients who underwent colonoscopic surveillance for a family history of CRC and all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. Analyses compared the number of colonoscopies performed that were not indicated by BSG guidelines, the average number of years early that patients were screened, the adenoma detection rate and the rate of tumour testing for mismatch repair genes before and after the implementation of the service., Results: Following the establishment of the service there was a reduction in the number of colonoscopies not indicated by BSG guidelines (39.6% before and 5.8% after, P < 0.001, chi-square test) and surveillance colonoscopy took place at a more appropriate age (10.6 years too early before and 5.9 years early after, P = 0.01, t-test). There was an increased adenoma detection rate (17% before and 31.9% after, P < 0.01, chi-square test) and increased tumour MMR testing (3.4% before and 91.8% after, P < 0.01, chi-square test)., Conclusion: The introduction of a family history of bowel cancer service results in improved patient care through improved adherence to guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance and increased cancer detection rates., (Colorectal Disease © 2019 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in patients younger than 50 years are increasing, but screening before the age of 50 is not offered in Europe. Advanced-stage diagnosis and mortality from colorectal cancer before 50 years of age are increasing. This is not a detection-bias effect; it is a real issue affecting the entire population. Three independent computational models indicate that screening from 45 years of age would yield a better balance of benefits and risks than the current start at 50 years of age. Experimental data support these predictions in a sex- and race-independent manner. Earlier screening is seemingly affordable, with minimal impediments to providing younger adults with colonoscopy. Indeed, the American Cancer Society has already started to recommend screening from 45 years of age in the United States. Implementing early screening is a societal and public health problem. The three independent computational models that suggested earlier screening were criticized for assuming perfect compliance. Guidelines and recommendations should be derived from well-collected and reproducible data, and not from mathematical predictions. In the era of personalized medicine, screening decisions might not be based solely on age, and sophisticated prediction software may better guide screening. Moreover, early screening might divert resources away from older individuals with greater biological risks. Finally, it is still unknown whether early colorectal cancer is part of a continuum of disease or a biologically distinct disease and, as such, it might not benefit from screening at all. The increase in early-onset colorectal cancer incidence and mortality demonstrates an obligation to take actions. Earlier screening would save lives, and starting at the age of 45 years may be a robust screening option., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare they have no potential competing conflicts of interest and no financial support.

Background: Data suggests that screening colonoscopy performed by non-gastroenterologists are lower quality with lower adenoma detection rates (ADR). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the endoscopist's specialty on quality parameters in screening colonoscopy., Methods: Screening colonoscopies performed between January 2016 and June 2017 were queried from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Quality parameters including overall ADR, gender-specific ADR, total examination time, cecal intubation rate and withdrawal time were compared between gastroenterology (GI) and colorectal surgery (CRS)., Results: A total of 15,276 patients were included in the study (mean age 60.3 ± 8; 52.4% female). 11,339 (74.2%) of the colonoscopies were performed by GI, and 3937 (25.7%) were by CRS. Withdrawal time and total scope time were shorter in the GI group. Cecal intubation rate was comparable. Overall ADR, female ADR and male ADR were significantly higher in the GI group, although both groups met national quality benchmarks., Conclusion: Both specialties achieve appropriate quality metrics for screening colonoscopy. Prospectively evaluating each endoscopist's outcomes, regardless of specialty, is an important tool for ongoing quality improvement towards better patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Improved therapy has substantially increased survival of persons with cystic fibrosis (CF). But the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults with CF is 5-10 times greater compared to the general population, and 25-30 times greater in CF patients after an organ transplantation. To address this risk, the CF Foundation convened a multi-stakeholder task force to develop CRC screening recommendations., Methods: The 18-member task force consisted of experts including pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, a social worker, nurse coordinator, surgeon, epidemiologist, statistician, CF adult, and a parent. The committee comprised 3 workgroups: Cancer Risk, Transplant, and Procedure and Preparation. A guidelines specialist at the CF Foundation conducted an evidence synthesis February-March 2016 based on PubMed literature searches. Task force members conducted additional independent searches. A total of 1159 articles were retrieved. After initial screening, the committee read 198 articles in full and analyzed 123 articles to develop recommendation statements. An independent decision analysis evaluating the benefits of screening relative to harms and resources required was conducted by the Department of Public Health at Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model from the Cancer Innervation and Surveillance Modeling Network. The task force included recommendation statements in the final guideline only if they reached an 80% acceptance threshold., Results: The task force makes 10 CRC screening recommendations that emphasize shared, individualized decision-making and familiarity with CF-specific gastrointestinal challenges. We recommend colonoscopy as the preferred screening method, initiation of screening at age 40 years, 5-year re-screening and 3-year surveillance intervals (unless shorter interval is indicated by individual findings), and a CF-specific intensive bowel preparation. Organ transplant recipients with CF should initiate CRC screening at age 30 years within 2 years of the transplantation because of the additional risk for colon cancer associated with immunosuppression., Conclusions: These recommendations aim to help CF adults, families, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and CF and transplantation centers address the issue of CRC screening. They differ from guidelines developed for the general population with respect to the recommended age of screening initiation, screening method, preparation, and the interval for repeat screening and surveillance., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines suggest that a gastroenterology fellow in training needs to perform 140 colonoscopies to achieve competency. Data are limited regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR) in fellowship., Aims: To assess how fellow ADR correlates with number of colonoscopies performed., Methods: We performed a retrospective study examining consecutive colonoscopies performed by gastroenterology fellows. Fellow ADR before and after the 140 procedure benchmark was compared to colonoscopies performed by attending only with whom these fellows trained. A threshold for ideal procedure count was performed using ROC analysis., Results: We analyzed 2021 average-risk colonoscopies performed by 10 gastroenterology fellows under the supervision of an attending physician. When fellows had performed <140 colonoscopies, the ADR was 27 % compared with an ADR of 36 % when fellows had performed >140 colonoscopies under attending supervision (p = 0.02). The ADR of fellows who had performed >140 colonoscopies under attending supervision was greater than that of attending-only colonoscopies (36 vs. 25 %, p < 0.0001). A threshold of >325 (male patients) and 539 (female patients) colonoscopies was determined to be ideal for achieving adequate ADR based on ROC analysis., Conclusions: Our data suggest that ADR increases after fellows perform >140 colonoscopies under attending supervision, and thereafter surpasses the ADR of attending-only colonoscopies. Some of the differences may be driven by detection of small adenomas. The findings of this study suggest that a higher threshold for number of colonoscopies performed under attending supervision may be needed to achieve adequate ADR during fellowship prior to independent practice.

Background and Study Aim: Quality measures for colonoscopy are operator dependent and vary. It is unclear whether quality measures change over time. In this study, time-dependent variation in colonoscopy performance was examined in a gastroenterology practice., Patients and Methods: Colonoscopy and histopathology records that were collected at three hospitals (one university and two non-university hospitals) over three time periods (2007, 2010, and 2013) were reviewed. Data from colonoscopists performing at least 100 procedures per year were analyzed. Inter-colonoscopist variation in performance (i. e. adjusted cecal intubation rate [aCIR], adenoma detection rate [ADR], advanced ADR, mean adenomas per procedure [MAP], proximal ADR, nonpolypoid ADR, and serrated polyp detection rate) were examined using coefficients of variation. Logistic regression analyses were also performed, adjusting for covariates., Results: A total of 23 colonoscopists performing 6400 procedures were included. Overall, the mean aCIR, ADR, MAP, and proximal ADR improved significantly over time, from 91.9 %, 22.5 %, 0.37, and 10.2 % in 2007 to 95.3 %, 25.8 %, 0.45, and 13.4 %, respectively, in 2013 (P < 0.05). The inter-colonoscopist variation in ADR decreased from 37 % in 2007 to 15 % in 2013 (P < 0.05). In the non-university hospitals, mean values for quality measures increased significantly over time, whereas they remained stable in the university hospital., Conclusions: Variability in performance among colonoscopists decreased significantly within the gastroenterology clinical practice. Core quality measures improved over time, mainly through improvement of the lower performers. Measurement of inter-colonoscopist variation in performance helps to identify factors that stimulate or hinder performance, and forms the basis for interventions., Trial Registration: http://www.trialregister.nl., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance., (Copyright © 2016 American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The Mayo Colonoscopy Skills Assessment Tool (MCSAT) has previously been used to describe learning curves and competency benchmarks for colonoscopy; however, these data were limited to a single training center. The newer Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool is a refinement of the MCSAT tool put forth by the Training Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, intended to include additional important quality metrics. The goal of this study is to validate the changes made by updating this tool and establish more generalizable and reliable learning curves and competency benchmarks for colonoscopy by examining a larger national cohort of trainees., Methods: In a prospective, multicenter trial, gastroenterology fellows at all stages of training had their core cognitive and motor skills in colonoscopy assessed by staff. Evaluations occurred at set intervals of every 50 procedures throughout the 2013 to 2014 academic year. Skills were graded by using the ACE tool, which uses a 4-point grading scale defining the continuum from novice to competent. Average learning curves for each skill were established at each interval in training and competency benchmarks for each skill were established using the contrasting groups method., Results: Ninety-three gastroenterology fellows at 10 U.S. academic institutions had 1061 colonoscopies assessed by using the ACE tool. Average scores of 3.5 were found to be inclusive of all minimal competency thresholds identified for each core skill. Cecal intubation times of less than 15 minutes and independent cecal intubation rates of 90% were also identified as additional competency thresholds during analysis. The average fellow achieved all cognitive and motor skill endpoints by 250 procedures, with >90% surpassing these thresholds by 300 procedures., Conclusions: Nationally generalizable learning curves for colonoscopy skills in gastroenterology fellows are described. Average ACE scores of 3.5, cecal intubation rates of 90%, and intubation times less than 15 minutes are recommended as minimal competency criteria. On average, it takes 250 procedures to achieve competence in colonoscopy. The thresholds found in this multicenter cohort by using the ACE tool are nearly identical to the previously established MCSAT benchmarks and are consistent with recent gastroenterology training recommendations but far higher than current training requirements in other specialties., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: The purpose of this research was to evaluate if withdrawal time is a useful index in spite of differences in gastroenterologists' ability and if there are other quality indicators of colonoscopy., Methods: A total of 665 consecutive, asymptomatic individuals of average risk between 50 and 75 years of age who underwent screening colonoscopies performed by 12 gastroenterologists were included in this study. The endoscopists were classified to either the experienced group (group A, N = 6) or the under-experienced group (group B, N = 6). The endoscopists were unaware that they were being studied during the two-month study period., Results: In group A, adenoma detection rate was 0.56, while in group B it was 0.43 (P = 0.048). The mean withdrawal time ranged widely from 4.2 to 10.3 min per patient with a mean value of 6.83 for group A and 6.54 for group B. There was a significantly positive relationship between the number of adenomas detected and the withdrawal time for group B (r = 0.827, P = 0.005), but not for group A (r = -0.152, P = 0.584). In the case of group A, the ratio of cecal intubation time to withdrawal time (I/E ratio) less than 1 showed significantly correlated adenoma detection rate compared to I/E ratio greater than 1 (r = -0.308, P = 0.036). In the case of group B, mean I/E ratio was 1.7 and all endoscopists' I/E ratios were greater than 1., Conclusions: For experienced endoscopists, a useful supplementary quality indicator of colonoscopy is to keep intubation/withdrawal time ratio less than 1 and it is necessary for under-experienced endoscopists to try to keep enough withdrawal time.

Background: A myriad of localization options are available to endoscopists for colorectal cancer (CRC); however, little is known about the use of such techniques and their relation to repeat endoscopy before CRC surgery. We examined the localization practices of gastroenterologists and compared their perceptions toward repeat endoscopy to those of general surgeons., Methods: We distributed a survey to practising gastroenterologists through a provincial repository. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test., Results: Gastroenterologists (n = 69) reported using anatomical landmarks (91.3%), tattooing (82.6%) and image capture (73.9%) for tumour localization. The majority said they would tattoo lesions that could not be removed by colonoscopy (91.3%), high-risk polyps (95.7%) and large lesions (84.1%). They were equally likely to tattoo lesions planned for laparoscopic (91.3%) or open (88.4%) resection. Rectal lesions were less likely to be tattooed (20.3%) than left-sided (89.9%) or right-sided (85.5%) lesions. Only 1.4% agreed that repeat endoscopy is the standard of care, whereas 38.9% (n = 68) of general surgeons agreed (p < 0.001). General surgeons were more likely to agree that an incomplete initial colonoscopy was an indication for repeat endoscopy (p = 0.040). Further, 56% of general surgeons indicated that the findings of repeat endoscopy often lead to changes in the operative plan., Conclusion: Discrepancies exist between gastroenterologists and general surgeons with regards to perceptions toward repeat endoscopy and its indications. This is especially significant given that repeat endoscopy often leads to change in surgical management. Further research is needed to formulate practice recommendations that guide the use of repeat endoscopy, tattoo localization and quality reporting.

Goals: To objectively assess when gastroenterology (GI) fellows achieve technical competency to perform colonoscopy independently., Background: New guidelines to assess the procedural competency of GI fellows in training have been developed. Although comprehensive, they do not account for the quality metrics to which independently practicing gastroenterologists are held., Study: We performed a prospective study examining consecutive colonoscopies performed by GI fellows from November 2013 through March 2014 at an academic medical center. Using a brief postprocedure questionnaire and the online medical record, we measured rates of independent fellow cecal intubation rate (CIR), insertion time to the cecum (cecal IT), and independent polypectomy rate. Our secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate., Results: A total of 898 colonoscopies performed by 10 GI fellows were analyzed. In the multivariate analysis, CIR [odds ratio (OR)=1.29, P=0.012], cecal IT (β-coefficient=0.19, P=0.006), and rates of unassisted independent snare polypectomy (OR=1.36, P<0.001) all improved significantly with increased number of procedures performed (OR and β-coefficient per 100 colonoscopies performed). After performing 500 colonoscopies, fellows achieved a mean CIR>90%, cecal IT between 7 and 10 minutes, and independent polypectomy rate of 90% with further improvement in cecal IT to <7 minutes, and independent snare polypectomy of >95% after 700 cases., Conclusions: Current procedural recommendations for fellowship training may underestimate the technical skill necessary for independent GI practice upon completion of fellowship. Technical proficiency in snare polypectomy may lag behind proficiency in cecal intubation.

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR., Objective: To examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR., Design: We applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR., Setting: A private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine., Patients: Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes., Main Outcome Measurements: ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking., Results: There were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from -5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable., Limitations: ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center., Conclusion: There is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dysplasia surveillance is recognized as an integral component in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). The adherence to surveillance guidelines is variable, and understanding of quality indicators and predictors of behavior is currently limited., Objective: To perform a nationwide evaluation of the quality of IBD surveillance practiced by Australian endoscopists and to determine the predictors of quality practice., Design: Cross-sectional nationwide survey., Setting: Survey distributed through the gastroenterology and colorectal surgery societies covering knowledge and practice of IBD surveillance., Main Outcome Measurements: Adherence to indicators of high-quality surveillance and median score of IBD surveillance guideline knowledge., Results: A total of 264 responses were received, comprising 240 respondents who perform surveillance screening (218 gastroenterologists, 46 colorectal surgeons). Gastroenterologists were significantly more likely to undertake surveillance (P < .001), adhere to guidelines (P = .02), use advanced imaging modalities (P = .04), and have greater surveillance knowledge than colorectal surgeons (P < .001). Knowledge score and gastroenterologists were independent predictors of dysplasia screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.96 and OR 11.2; 95% CI, 4.53-27.87), guideline adherence (OR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31 and OR 2.42; 95% CI, 1.11-5.30), and advanced endoscopic imaging technique use (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35 and OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.02-4.74)., Limitations: Potential responder bias results appear, however, aligned with those of previous studies., Conclusions: IBD dysplasia surveillance in Australia is being performed at a high standard. Gastroenterology specialization and knowledge score have been demonstrated to be strong predictors of high-quality surveillance practice. This is the first study to determine predictors of screening behavior and quantify surveillance quality. These results further emphasize that gastroenterologists should play a key role in IBD surveillance., (Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since 2008, multiple guidelines have endorsed incorporation of chest CT in the radiographic staging assessment of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC). Radiographic staging practices performed after CRC is detected have not been studied., Objective: To evaluate radiographic staging practices for newly diagnosed CRC between gastroenterologists versus non-gastroenterologists., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Single, tertiary-care referral center., Patients: Patients newly diagnosed with a T1 or higher stage CRC at time of colonoscopy between 2008 and 2013., Interventions: Radiographic staging., Main Outcome Measurements: Radiographic preoperative staging examinations ordered by gastroenterologists in comparison to those ordered by non-gastroenterology specialists., Results: This study included 277 patients with CRC newly diagnosed by colonoscopy. There were 141 total ordering physicians (68 gastroenterologists and 73 non-gastroenterologists). The majority of preoperative radiographic staging was performed by gastroenterologists (59.2% of patients, n = 164). Colorectal surgeons managed staging in 28.7% of patients (n = 47). Gastroenterologists were more likely to omit a staging chest CT than were non-gastroenterologists (64.6% vs 46.9%; P < .001). Physician practice setting, rectal location of tumor, and advanced endoscopic appearance of tumors were predictors of chest CT inclusion., Limitations: Single center, moderate sample size of both providers and patients., Conclusion: Gastroenterologists more frequently ordered the initial radiographic staging studies in newly diagnosed CRC patients. However, gastroenterologists were less likely to include chest CT in the initial staging of CRC despite current guideline recommendations to do so. If confirmed with further studies, educational efforts to improve compliance and standardization may be needed., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aim: International studies have shown differences in the outcome of screening colonoscopies related to the endoscopist's specialty and setting of colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of these two factors on quality parameters for screening colonoscopy in a quality-assured screening program., Methods: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), polypectomy rate, flat polyp detection rate, carcinoma detection rate, sedation rate, complication rates, and other parameters of 59 901 screening colonoscopies performed by 178 endoscopists were analyzed in relation to specialty (35 gastroenterologists: 10 066 colonoscopies [16.8 %]; 84 nongastroenterologists: 26 271 colonoscopies [43.9 %]; 59 surgeons: 23 564 [39.3 %]), and setting (hospital: 12 580 [21.6 %] colonoscopies; office: 45 781 [78.4 %] colonoscopies)., Results: The overall ADR was 20.5 % and the CIR was 95.6 %. The ADR did not show any statistical significance, either in relation to specialty or to setting. A significant difference in the CIR was found between hospital-based and office-based internists (98.5 % vs. 96.8 %, respectively; P  = 0.0005; odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.4 - 3.4). Hospital-based internists had a significantly higher flat polyp detection rate (7.5 % vs. 4.1 %; P  = 0.02; OR 1.9, 95 %CI 1.1 - 3.2) and a significantly lower carcinoma detection rate (0.4 % vs. 0.6 %; P  = 0.03; OR 0.7, 95 %CI 0.5 - 1.0) compared with office-based internists. Complication rates were significantly lower among surgeons than among internists (0.1 % vs. 0.2 %; P  = 0.03; OR 0.5, 95 %CI 0.3 - 1.0)., Conclusion: Endoscopists participating in the Austrian quality assurance program offered high quality screening colonoscopy regardless of their specialty and setting. The implementation of a standardized quality program is therefore a decisive factor in quality improvement of screening colonoscopy., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: "Resect and discard" (RD) is a new paradigm for management of diminutive polyps., Aim: To compare concordance of surveillance interval recommendations and diagnostic performance between RD and standard of care in a hospital outpatient department with both academic and community gastroenterologists., Methods: Prospective, observational study conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy center over 12 months. Patients with diminutive polyps on screening or surveillance colonoscopy were included. Histology predictions for all diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) were made based on endoscopic imaging. Concordance of recommended surveillance intervals and diagnostic performance of histology predictions were compared to histopathological review., Results: A total of 606 diminutive polyps were found in 315 patients (mean age 62.4 years, 49 % female). Histological prediction was made in 95.7 % of polyps (97.4 % of patients), with high confidence in 74.3 %. The concordance for surveillance intervals was 82.1 % compared to histopathological review and was similar between community and academic gastroenterologists (80.2 vs. 76.3 %, p = 0.38). Overall, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of histological predictions made with high confidence were 0.81, 0.36, and 77.1 %. Predictions made with narrow-band imaging (NBI) had lower accuracy (73.9 % with NBI vs. 82.5 % with high-definition white light (HWDL) only, p = 0.017) as well as lower prediction confidence (score of 7.6 with NBI vs. 8.6 with HDWL only, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our surveillance interval concordance was below the 90 % threshold deemed acceptable by the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations statement. Diagnostic performance using optical imaging to predict histology was equal between community and academic endoscopists.

Background: There is increasing demand for colonoscopy quality measures for procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers. Benchmarks such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are traditionally reported as static, one-dimensional point estimates at a provider or practice level., Objective: To evaluate 6-year variability of ADRs for 370 gastroenterologists from across the nation., Design: Observational cross-sectional analysis., Setting: Collaborative quality metrics database from 2007 to 2012., Patients: Patients who underwent colonoscopies in ambulatory surgery centers., Interventions: Colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: The number of colonoscopies with an adenomatous polyp divided by the total number of colonoscopies (ADR-T), inclusive of indication and patient's sex., Results: Data from 368,157 colonoscopies were included for analysis from 11 practices. Three practice sites (5, 8, and 10) were significantly above and 2 sites (3, 7) were significantly below mean ADR-T, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). High-performing sites had 9.0% higher ADR-T than sites belonging to the lowest quartile (P < .001). The mean ADR-T remained stable for 9 of 11 sites. Regression analysis showed that the 2 practice sites where ADR-T varied had significant improvements in ADR-T during the 6-year period. For each, mean ADR-T improved an average of 0.5% per quarter for site 2 (P = .001) and site 3 (P = .021), which were average and low performers, respectively., Limitations: Summary-level data, which does not allow cross-reference of variables at an individual level., Conclusion: We found performance disparities among practice sites remaining relatively consistent over a 6-year period. The ability of certain sites to sustain their high-performance over 6 years suggests that further research is needed to identify key organizational processes and physician incentives that improve the quality of colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Due to the increased risk of colorectal cancer, colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with ulcerative and Crohn's colitis. Because surveillance intervals differ considerably between the recently updated American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines, we compared the neoplasia yield and colonoscopic workload of these guidelines., Methods: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing surveillance were identified using medical records. Patients were stratified according to the BSG and AGA guidelines, and corresponding colonoscopic workload was calculated based on the risk factors present during follow-up. The incidence of colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN), defined as a low-grade dysplasia in flat mucosa or a non-adenoma-like mass, high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer was compared between the risk groups of either guidelines., Results: In total, 1018 patients with inflammatory bowel disease who underwent surveillance were identified. Using the AGA surveillance intervals, 64 patients (6%) were assigned to annual and 954 patients (94%) to biannual surveillance, resulting in 541 colonoscopies per year. The yield of CAN was 5.3% and 20.3% in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively (P = 0.02). Using the BSG surveillance intervals, 204 patients received surveillance annually (20%), 393 patients every 3 years (39%), and 421 patients every 5 years (41%), resulting in 420 colonoscopies per year, which is 22% lower than the AGA guidelines. The yield of CAN was 3.6%, 6.9%, and 10.8%, for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (P = 0.26)., Conclusions: Although the BSG surveillance intervals offer the advantage of a lower colonoscopic workload, the risk stratification of the AGA seems superior in distinguishing patients at higher risk of CAN.

Background: Some studies have shown that endoscopist specialty is associated with colorectal cancers missed by colonoscopy. We sought to examine the relationship between endoscopist specialty and polypectomy rate, a colonoscopy quality indicator. Polypectomy rate is defined as the proportion of colonoscopies that result in the removal of one or more polyps., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted of endoscopists and their patients from 7 Montreal and 2 Calgary endoscopy clinics. Eligible patients were aged 50-75 and covered by provincial health insurance. A patient questionnaire assessed family history of colorectal cancer, history of large bowel conditions and symptoms, and previous colonoscopy. The outcome, polypectomy status, was obtained from provincial health administrative databases. For each city, Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for polypectomy comparing surgeons to gastroenterologists. Model covariates included patient age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, colonoscopy indication, and previous colonoscopy., Results: In total, 2,113 and 538 colonoscopies were included from Montreal and Calgary, respectively. Colonoscopies were performed by 38 gastroenterologists and 6 surgeons in Montreal, and by 31 gastroenterologists and 5 surgeons in Calgary. The adjusted odds ratios comparing surgeons to gastroenterologists were 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32-0.71) in Montreal and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.43-1.21) in Calgary., Conclusions: An association between endoscopist specialty and polypectomy was observed in both cities after adjusting for patient-level covariates. Results from Montreal suggest that surgeons are half as likely as gastroenterologists to remove polyps, while those from Calgary were associated with a wide, non-significant Bayesian credible interval. However, residual confounding from patient-level variables is possible, and further investigation is required.

Background: National guidelines put forth by the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Gastroenterology provide recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening and follow-up surveillance. Practice patterns may differ from these guidelines. This study analyzes the concordance between a tertiary equal access system and national guidelines for colorectal cancer and polyp surveillance., Methods: We performed a retrospective database review of all patients at a single institution undergoing screening colonoscopy from 2010 to 2011. Patient demographics, indication for colonoscopy, pathologic findings, and follow-up recommendations documented by the provider were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was performed in an attempt to identify predictors of discordant recommendations., Results: One thousand four hundred twenty patients were identified (mean age, 54.3 ± 7.7 years, 48.6% women). The gastroenterology service performed the majority of colonoscopies (87.2%) compared with the surgery service (11.6%). The major indications were routine screening (84.4%) and a strong family history of colorectal cancer (12.2%). The adenoma detection rate for the entire cohort was 27.4%. Other pathologic conditions identified included hyperplastic polyps (16%), lymphoid aggregates (3.5%), and invasive adenocarcinoma (0.1%). Overall, follow-up recommendations correlated with established guidelines in 97% of cases. By multivariate analysis, only the final pathologic finding of lymphoid aggregates was associated with discordant recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 4.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64 to 12.99; P = .004). When comparing discordant recommendations between specialties, there was a statistically significant difference between gastroenterology (1.6%) and surgery (7.6%) (P < .0001) providers; surgeons trended toward recommending earlier follow-up examinations (P = .37)., Conclusions: Overall, surveillance recommendations correlated well with current national guidelines. Concordance rates were higher with gastroenterologists in this cohort. Alterations based on final pathologic examination and individual cases remain clinically important., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key measure of quality in colonoscopy. Low ADRs are associated with development of interval cancer after "negative" colonoscopy. Uncontrolled studies mandating longer withdrawal time, and other incentives, have not significantly improved ADR. We hypothesized that an endoscopist training program would increase ADRs., Methods: Our Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program (EQUIP) was an educational intervention for staff endoscopists. We measured ADRs for a baseline period, then randomly assigned half of the 15 endoscopists to undergo EQUIP training. We then examined baseline and post-training study ADRs for all endoscopists (trained and un-trained) to evaluate the impact of training. A total of 1,200 procedures were completed in each of the two study phases., Results: Patient characteristics were similar between randomization groups and between study phases. The overall ADR in baseline phase was 36% for both groups of endoscopists. In the post-training phase, the group of endoscopists randomized to EQUIP training had an increase in ADR to 47%, whereas the ADR for the group of endoscopists who were not trained remained unchanged at 35%. The effect of training on the endoscopist-specific ADRs was estimated with an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.24-2.41, P=0.0013)., Conclusions: Our results indicate that ADRs can be improved considerably through simple educational efforts. Ultimately, a trial involving a larger number of endoscopists is needed to validate the utility of our training methods and determine whether improvements in ADRs lead to reduced colorectal cancer.

Venous invasion (VI) is an independent prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer and may prompt consideration for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II tumors. Recent evidence suggests that VI is underreported in colorectal cancer and that detection may be enhanced by an elastin stain. This study aimed (1) to determine the impact of an elastin stain on VI detection and on interobserver agreement between gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI pathologists, and (2) to identify factors associated with increased VI detection. Forty hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides were circulated to 6 GI and 6 non-GI pathologists who independently assessed the VI status as positive, negative, or equivocal. Six weeks later, 40 corresponding Movat-stained slides were recirculated together with the original H&E slides and reassessed for VI status. Detection of VI was >2-fold higher with a Movat stain compared with an H&E stain alone (46.4% vs. 19.6%, P=0.001). GI pathologists detected VI more frequently than non-GI pathologists on both H&E (30.0% vs. 9.2%, P=0.029) and Movat (58.3% vs. 34.6%, P=0.018) stains. There was higher interobserver agreement in the case of a Movat stain, particularly for extramural VI (H&E: κ=0.23 vs. Movat: κ=0.41). A poststudy survey indicated that GI pathologists and non-GI pathologists applied similar diagnostic criteria but that GI pathologists more frequently applied "orphan arteriole" and "protruding tongue" signs as diagnostic clues to VI. This study confirms that VI is underdetected on H&E and highlights the role of elastin staining in improving VI detection and interobserver agreement. Strategies to improve VI detection are warranted.

Background: Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines is important to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and unnecessary workload., Objective: To evaluate how well Canadian gastroenterologists adhere to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines after adenoma removal or treatment for CRC., Methods: Patients with a history of adenomas or CRC who had surveillance performed between October 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively included. Time intervals between index colonoscopy and surveillance were compared with the 2008 guideline recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association and regarded as appropriate when the surveillance interval was within six months of the recommended time interval., Results: A total of 265 patients were included (52% men; mean age 58 years). Among patients with a normal index colonoscopy (n=110), 42% received surveillance on time, 38% too early (median difference = 1.2 years too early) and 20% too late (median difference = 1.0 year too late). Among patients with nonadvanced adenomas at index (n=96), 25% underwent surveillance on time, 61% too early (median difference = 1.85) and 14% too late (median difference = 1.1). Among patients with advanced neoplasia at index (n=59), 29% underwent surveillance on time, 34% too early (median difference = 1.86) and 37% later than recommended (median difference = 1.61). No significant difference in adenoma detection rates was observed when too early surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (34% versus 33%; P=0.92) and too late surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (21% versus 33%; P=0.11) were compared., Conclusion: Only a minority of surveillance colonoscopies were performed according to guideline recommendations. Deviation from the guidelines did not improve the adenoma detection rate. Interventions aimed at improving adherence to surveillance guidelines are needed.

Background and Aims: Current efforts to prevent colorectal cancer focus on the detection and removal of neoplasms. Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRN) have a subtle appearance that can be difficult to recognize during colonoscopy. Endoscopists must first be familiar with the patterns of NP-CRN in order to detect and diagnose them. We studied the adenoma detection rates of endoscopists who had trained to detect NP-CRN, versus endoscopists who had not., Design: Retrospective Nested Case Control Study., Setting: Outpatient Screening Colonoscopy., Participants: Adult Veterans., Intervention: Proficiency in the features and diagnosis of NP-CRN., Main Outcomes Measurements: Adenoma detection., Results: In total, 462 patients had screening colonoscopies-267 by colonoscopists who had trained in the features and diagnosis of NP-CRN. Patient characteristics were similar between groups-the majority were men with a mean age of 62 ± 6 years. Neoplasia was more prevalent (45.7 vs. 34.9%; p = 0.02) in patients evaluated by the trained compared to the conventionally trained group. Trained colonoscopists had a higher adenoma detection rate (0.76 vs. 0.54 adenomas per patient, p < 0.001); removed a higher proportion of neoplasia (77 vs. 35%, p < 0.001); and more frequently diagnosed NP-CRN lesions (OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.46-6.08) compared to colonoscopists without supplemental training., Conclusions: Endoscopists who are proficient in the detection of NP-CRN had significantly higher adenoma detection rates-of both polypoid and flat adenomas-compared to endoscopists without training, and were more specific in resection of adenomatous over hyperplastic lesions.

Objectives: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an emerging colon cancer screening modality that has the potential to increase adherence to current screening recommendations. Traditionally, the interpretation of CTC has been limited to radiologists. As the technology of CTC has developed, three-dimensional endoluminal fly-through images have largely replaced two-dimensional CT images as the primary reading modality. Such a display is a realistic corollary to the endoscopic view obtained during colonoscopy. Our study sought to determine whether gastroenterologists could interpret the colonic display of CTC with an accuracy similar to that of trained radiologists., Methods: Three board-certified gastroenterologists and four gastroenterology fellows in various stages of training interpreted a mean of 45 CTCs (range: 30-50) in which colonoscopy had also been performed. Before reading any cases, each reader underwent CTC interpretation training with an experienced CTC radiologist. After interpreting each CTC, the gastroenterologist had access to both the original radiology interpretation of the CTC and the corresponding colonoscopy results. Outcomes included accuracy of the gastroenterologists' interpretation, time required for CTC interpretation, evidence of learning, and the level of diagnostic agreement between gastroenterologists and radiologists., Results: Gastroenterologist readers identified polyps >or=6 mm on CTC with a mean sensitivity and specificity of 83.5% (67-100%) and 78.8% (69-100%), respectively. Corresponding values for polyps >or=8 mm were 83.8% (68-100%) and 74% (30-93%), respectively, and those for polyps >or=10 mm were 87.8% (67-100%) and 85.2% (60-94%), respectively. Overall, 83% (5 of 6) of gastroenterologists achieved kappa scores >or=0.60, suggesting good agreement with radiologists; 66% achieved kappa>or=0.75. There was a direct relationship between diagnostic accuracy and level of gastroenterology training, with third-year fellows being nearly as accurate as the attendings. The average gastroenterologist CTC reading time was 18.4 min (range: 11.2-25.6)., Conclusions: The gastroenterologists in this study were able to read CTCs with an accuracy that approaches that of radiologists. The level of training affected the accuracy of CTC interpretation by the gastroenterologist. Average gastroenterologist CTC interpretation times in this study were similar to recommended colonoscopy times. Further studies are warranted to determine whether gastroenterologists are able to interpret CTCs independently in clinical practice.

Background: Nurse endoscopists may provide a solution for the insufficient endoscopic capacity in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening., Aim: To determine the views of gastroenterologists about the potential role of nurse endoscopists in gastrointestinal endoscopy., Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to all registered gastroenterologists (n = 301) and gastroenterology residents (n = 79) in the Netherlands., Results: Two hundred and thirty five of 380 (62%) gastroenterologists and residents completed the questionnaire. Overall, 48% were positive towards introduction of nurse endoscopists, whereas 18% were neutral and 34% negative. Respondents expected no major differences in endoscopic quality between physicians and nurse endoscopists. Nevertheless, 69% expected that patient experiences would be better met by physicians. Multivariate analysis showed that actual experience with nurse endoscopists and beliefs that nurse endoscopists are able to provide adequate endoscopic quality and good patient experiences, were independent predictors for a positive attitude towards introduction of nurse endoscopists [OR 6.6 (2.3-18.4), OR 1.9 (1.2-3.5) and OR 2.1 (1.2-2.9), respectively]. Respectively 89% and 66% of the respondents considered sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy for CRC screening as appropriate procedures to be performed by nurse endoscopists. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopies were considered less appropriate., Conclusion: A majority of gastroenterologists have a positive attitude towards introduction of nurse endoscopists, especially for CRC screening endoscopies.

Aim: To study adherence to the widely accepted surveillance guidelines for patients with long-standing colitis in The Netherlands., Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all 244 gastroenterologists in The Netherlands., Results: The response rate was 63%. Of all gastroenterologists, 95% performed endoscopic surveillance in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and 65% in patients with Crohn's colitis. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines were followed by 27%, while 27% and 46% followed their local hospital protocol or no specific protocol, respectively. The surveillance was correctly initiated in cases of pancolitis by 53%, and in cases of left-sided colitis by 44% of the gastroenterologists. Although guidelines recommend 4 biopsies every 10 cm, less than 30 biopsies per colonoscopy were taken by 73% of the responders. Only 31%, 68% and 58% of the gastroenterologists referred patients for colectomy when low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or Dysplasia Associated Lesion or Mass (DALM) was present, respectively., Conclusion: Most Dutch gastroenterologists perform endoscopic surveillance without following international recommended guidelines. This practice potentially leads to a decreased sensitivity for dysplasia, rendering screening for colorectal cancer in this population highly ineffective.

Different societies have published guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in ulcerative colitis (UC). While it would seem that most gastroenterologists and endoscopists agree with these guidelines, different studies have shown that in clinical practice, the concept of dysplasia is not fully understood, and therefore, the guidelines are not always followed. According to some studies, the reason why gastroenterologists do not follow the recommendations is inadequate education. The main advance in recent years in this subject is in endoscopic diagnosis of dysplasia. The magnification and chromoendoscopy allow targeted biopsies to be taken. Some studies indicate that nontargeted biopsies are not useful in ruling out dysplasia. It is also important to realize that most dysplasia is visible in conventional colonoscopy. In colonoscopy, it is not only significant to detect dysplasia-associated lesions or masses; the endoscopist should also be trained to detect, in the course of conventional exploration, subtle changes in colour or in mucosal surfaces that imply dysplasia. Adherence to guidelines had been extensively assessed in other disease conditions (asthma, hypertension, etc.). According to our knowledge there are no such data regarding CRC surveillance in UC. Some barriers that may affect physicians include: (i) knowledge (lack of awareness or lack of familiarity); (ii) attitudes (lack of agreement, lack of self-efficacy, lack of outcome expectancy, or the inertia of previous practice) and (iii) behaviour (external barriers). In conclusion, we need new guidelines for CRC surveillance in UC, which must take into account the advances in risk factors of dysplasia and new technologies to study colon dysplasia.