Search

Background/aims: Clinical guidelines should ideally be formulated from data representative of the population they are applicable to; however, historically, studies have disproportionally enrolled non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients, leading to potential inequities in care for minority groups. Our study aims to evaluate the extent to which racial minorities were represented in the United States Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Guidelines., Methods: We reviewed US guidelines between 1997 and 2020 and all identified studies cited by recommendations for surveillance after a baseline colonoscopy with no polyps, adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and hyperplastic polyps. We analyzed the proportion of studies reporting race, and among these studies, we calculated the racial distribution of patients and compared the proportion of Non-NHW patients between each subtype., Results: For all guidelines, we reviewed 75 studies encompassing 9,309,955 patients. Race was reported in 24% of studies and 14% of total patients. Non-NHW comprised 43% of patients in studies for normal colonoscopies, compared with 9% for adenomas, 22% for sessile serrated polyps, and 15% for hyperplastic polyps. For the 2020 guidelines, we reviewed 33 studies encompassing 5,930,722 patients. Race was reported in 15% of studies and 21% of total patients. Non-NHW comprised 43% of patients in studies for normal colonoscopies, compared with 9% for tubular adenomas. Race was not cited for any other 2020 guideline., Conclusion: Racial minorities are significantly underrepresented in US Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Guidelines, which may contribute to disparities in care. Future studies should prioritize enrolling a diverse patient population to provide data that accurately reflects their population., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: D. K. Rex: Consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; research support from Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc, and Braintree Laboratories; shareholder in Satisfai Health. T. Kaltenbach: Consultant for Verily Life Sciences and Olympus Corporation. U. Ladabaum: Advisor for Universal Dx, Kohler Ventures, Vivante Health, and Lean Health; consultant for Freenome, Guardant, Neptune, Media EarlySign, and Medtronic. T. R. Levin: Research support from Freenome, Inc. A. Shaukat: Consultant for Iterative Health. F. A. Farraye: Consultant for AbbVie, Avalo Therapeutics, BMS, Braintree Labs, Fresenius Kabi, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sandoz Immunology, and Viatris; data and safety monitoring board for Lilly. S. Kane: Consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, InveniAI, Janssen, Fresenius Kabi, PredicatMed, Lilly, and Takeda; section editor for UpToDate. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

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.)

Background & Aims: Large language models including Chat Generative Pretrained Transformers version 4 (ChatGPT4) improve access to artificial intelligence, but their impact on the clinical practice of gastroenterology is undefined. This study compared the accuracy, concordance, and reliability of ChatGPT4 colonoscopy recommendations for colorectal cancer rescreening and surveillance with contemporary guidelines and real-world gastroenterology practice., Methods: History of present illness, colonoscopy data, and pathology reports from patients undergoing procedures at 2 large academic centers were entered into ChatGPT4 and it was queried for the next recommended colonoscopy follow-up interval. Using the McNemar test and inter-rater reliability, we compared the recommendations made by ChatGPT4 with the actual surveillance interval provided in the endoscopist's procedure report (gastroenterology practice) and the appropriate US Multisociety Task Force (USMSTF) guidance. The latter was generated for each case by an expert panel using the clinical information and guideline documents as reference., Results: Text input of de-identified data into ChatGPT4 from 505 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy between January 1 and April 30, 2023, elicited a successful follow-up recommendation in 99.2% of the queries. ChatGPT4 recommendations were in closer agreement with the USMSTF Panel (85.7%) than gastroenterology practice recommendations with the USMSTF Panel (75.4%) (P < .001). Of the 14.3% discordant recommendations between ChatGPT4 and the USMSTF Panel, recommendations were for later screening in 26 (5.1%) and for earlier screening in 44 (8.7%) cases. The inter-rater reliability was good for ChatGPT4 vs USMSTF Panel (Fleiss κ, 0.786; 95% CI, 0.734-0.838; P < .001)., Conclusions: Initial real-world results suggest that ChatGPT4 can define routine colonoscopy screening intervals accurately based on verbatim input of clinical data. Large language models have potential for clinical applications, but further training is needed for broad use., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection., Methods: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round., Results: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions., Conclusions: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: A. Sethi: consultant for Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and Olympus; research support from Boston Scientific and Fujifilm; advisory board member for Endosound. K. Mönkemüller: consultant for Ovesco USA and Ovesco Germany. T. Pavic: speaker for Olympus and Boston Scientific. M. J. Bourke: research support for ethics-approved studies from Cook Medical, Olympus Medical, and Boston Scientific. P. Saxena: consultant for Boston Scientific, Ambu, and Erbe. D. K. Rex: Consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; research support from Olympus Corporation, Medivators, Erbe USA Inc, and Braintree Laboratories; shareholder with Satisfai Health. U. D. Siddiqui: research, consultant, and speaker for Olympus and Boston Scientific; and consultant and speaker for CONMED, Cook, and Medtronic. M. Pellisé: clinical advisory boards for Fujifilm Europe and Olympus; clinical advisory board and share options in MiWEndo; speaker fees from Casen Recordati, Norgine Iberia, Fujifilm, Mayoli, Medtronic, and Olympus; and research funding from Fujifilm, Casen Recordati, Ziuz, and 3-D Matrix. J. D. Mosko: Consulting: Boston Scientific, Fuji, Medtronic, Pendopharm, and Steris; research funding from Boston Scientific and Vantage/ERBE. C. W. Teshima: speaker for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and consultant for Boston Scientific. G. R. May: consultant for Olympus; and speaker for Pentax, Fuji, and Medtronic. S. C. Grover: research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals; personal fees from Takeda, Sanofi, and BioJAMP; education grants from Janssen; and equity shares in Volo Healthcare. C. Hassan: consultant for Fujifilm and Medtronic; and research grants from Fujifilm and NEC. A. Repici: consultant for Fujifilm, Olympus Corp, and Medtronic; and research grants from Fujifilm and NEC. P. Sharma: consultant for Olympus Corporation, Boston Scientific, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Cipla, Medtronic, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, and CDx; and grant support from ERBE and Fujifilm. R. Bechara: consultant for Olympus, Pentax, Vantage, Medtronic, and Pendopharm. A. Shaukat: Consultant for Itertive Health, Freenome, UniversalDx, and Motus GI. All other authors disclosed no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to declare. The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a growing demand for colonoscopy, worldwide, resulting in increased rate of inappropriate referrals. This "overuse" of colonoscopies has become a major burden for health care., Objectives: to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies performed at the endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Sousse and to compare these results of appropriateness according to the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) I and EPAGE II criteria., Patients and Methods: this cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients referred for exclusively therapeutic indications, those with incomplete colonoscopies were not included. Patients with poor bowel preparation or missing data were also excluded. Indications were assessed using the EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria., Results: From 1972 consecutive patients, 1307 were included. Overall, 986 (75.4%) of all referrals were for out-patients. The majority of patients were referred by gastroenterologists (n = 1026 patients; 78.5%), followed by general surgeons (n = 85; 6.5%). The commonest indications were lower abdominal symptoms (275; 21%) followed by uncomplicated diarrhea (152; 11.6%). Relevant findings were present in 363 patients (27.7%). Neoplastic lesions were the dominant finding in 221 patients (16.9%). EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria were applicable for 1237 (88.8%) and 1276 (97.7%) patients respectively. Hematochezia and abdominal pain recorded the highest inappropriate rates with both sets of criteria. Appropriate colonoscopies increased to 76.4% when EPAGE II criteria were applied; whereas uncertain and inappropriate procedures decreased to 10.3% and 10.9% respectively Appropriateness of indication was significantly higher in hospitalized patients. For the EPAGE II criteria, the specialty of the referring physician was also significantly associated to the appropriate use. The agreement between EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria was slight using the weighted version of k (k = 0.153)., Conclusions: The updated and improved EPAGE II guidelines are a simple and valid tool for assessing the appropriateness of colonoscopies. They decreased the inappropriate rate and the possibility of missing potentially severe diagnoses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in Brazil, despite the availability of screening methods that reduce its risk. Colonoscopy is the only screening method that also allows therapeutic procedures. The proper screening through colonoscopy is linked to the quality of the exam, which can be evaluated according to quality criteria recommended by various institutions. Among the factors, the most used is the Adenoma Detection Rate, which should be at least 25% for general population., Aims: To evaluate the quality of the screening colonoscopies performed in a quarternary private Brazilian hospital., Methods: This is a retrospective study evaluating the quality indicators of colonoscopies performed at a private center since its inauguration. Only asymptomatic patients aged over 45 years who underwent screening colonoscopy were included. The primary outcome was the Adenoma Detection Rate, and secondary outcomes included polyps detection rate and safety profile. Subanalyses evaluated the correlation of endoscopic findings with gender and age and the evolution of detection rates over the years., Results: A total of 2,144 patients were include with a mean age of 60.54 years-old. Polyps were diagnosed in 68.6% of the procedures. Adenoma detection rate was 46.8%, with an increasing rate over the years, mainly in males. A low rate of adverse events was reported in 0.23% of the cases, with no need for surgical intervention and no deaths., Conclusions: This study shows that high quality screening colonoscopy is possible when performed by experienced endoscopists and trained nurses, under an adequate infrastructure.

Background: Construct deep learning models for colonoscopy quality control using different architectures and explore their decision-making mechanisms., Methods: A total of 4,189 colonoscopy images were collected from two medical centers, covering different levels of bowel cleanliness, the presence of polyps, and the cecum. Using these data, eight pre-trained models based on CNN and Transformer architectures underwent transfer learning and fine-tuning. The models' performance was evaluated using metrics such as AUC, Precision, and F1 score. Perceptual hash functions were employed to detect image changes, enabling real-time monitoring of colonoscopy withdrawal speed. Model interpretability was analyzed using techniques such as Grad-CAM and SHAP. Finally, the best-performing model was converted to ONNX format and deployed on device terminals., Results: The EfficientNetB2 model outperformed other architectures on the validation set, achieving an accuracy of 0.992. It surpassed models based on other CNN and Transformer architectures. The model's precision, recall, and F1 score were 0.991, 0.989, and 0.990, respectively. On the test set, the EfficientNetB2 model achieved an average AUC of 0.996, with a precision of 0.948 and a recall of 0.952. Interpretability analysis showed the specific image regions the model used for decision-making. The model was converted to ONNX format and deployed on device terminals, achieving an average inference speed of over 60 frames per second., Conclusions: The AI-assisted quality system, based on the EfficientNetB2 model, integrates four key quality control indicators for colonoscopy. This integration enables medical institutions to comprehensively manage and enhance these indicators using a single model, showcasing promising potential for clinical applications., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The implementation of FIT programs reduces incidence and mortality from CRC in the screened subjects. The ultimate efficacy for CRC morbidity and mortality prevention in a FIT program depends on the colonoscopy in FIT+ subjects that has the task of detecting and removing these advanced lesions. Recently, there has been growing evidence on factors that influence the quality of colonoscopy specifically withing organized FIT programs, prompting to dedicated interventions in order to maximize the benefit/harm ratio of post-FIT colonoscopy. This document focuses on the diagnostic phase of colonoscopy, providing indications on how to standardise colonoscopy in FIT+ subjects, regarding timing of examination, management of antithrombotic therapy, bowel preparation, competence and sedation., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI)., Results: Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points)., Conclusions: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality., Methods: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves., Results: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25)., Conclusions: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with 4 key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas, non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI practitioner, comparing their outcomes with those of GI providers., Methods: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using a P value of less than .05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all P values were 2-sided., Results: No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged from 98% to 100% for cecal intubation; 97.4% to 100% for bowel preparation; 57.4% to 88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7% to 62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10 to 0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (P < .001)., Conclusions: As a result of this analysis, we can expect non-GI practitioner to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI practitioner given the performance outcomes for the key quality metrics., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Objectives: The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for colonoscopy are suboptimal in clinical practice. Electronic reporting systems may play an important role in data retrieval. We aimed to define the possibility of systematically assessing and monitoring ESGE performance measures for colonoscopy through reporting systems. Materials and Methods : We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on the quality of colonoscopy held in Rome, Italy, in March 2023 by a self-administered questionnaire. Analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting. Results : The attendance was 93% (M/F 67/26), with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practices. Only about one-third (34%) and 21.5% of participants stated that their reporting system allows them to retrieve all the ESGE performance measures, overall and as automatic retrieval, respectively. Only 66.7% and 10.7% of respondents can systematically report the cecal intubation and the adenoma detection rate, respectively. The analysis according to hospital setting revealed no significant difference for all the items. Conclusions : We found a generalized lack of systematic tracking of performance measures for colonoscopy due to underperforming reporting systems. Our results underline the need to update reporting systems to monitor the quality of endoscopy practice in Italy.

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has been on the advisory boards of Pentax, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Boston Scientific, and Olympus, and has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Medtronic, and Fujifilm; his department has received research grants, and organizational support for events from Pentax and Medtronic, and further organizational support for events from Erbe, Ovesco, and Olympus (all within the last 3 years). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Cook Medical and Olympus (2014 to date). E. Dekker has provided consultancy to Olympus and GI supply (several occasions in recent years). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022) and received a research grant from Fujifilm (2021 to 2022). H. Messmann has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (2022 to date); his department has received research support from Olympus and Satisfai (2022 to date). L. Moons has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Pentax (2024 to date) and is a member of the Colorectal cancer guideline committee and chair of the Dutch Guideline group on polypectomy in the rectum and colon. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2019), GI supply (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2021 to date), and Olympus (2022 to date), and received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021), Casen recordati (2020), and ZuiZ (2021); her department has also received equipment on loan from Fujifilm Europe (2019 to date); she was on the Endoscopy editorial board (2015 to 2021), was ESGE Equity and diversity working group chair (2021 to 2022), councillor for SEED (2016 to 2022), and is president of AEG (2022 to date). G. Rahmi has provided consultancy to Fujifilm and Medtronic (2023 to date). A. Repici has received consultancy fees and research funding from ERBE (2020 to date) and Fujifilm (2018 to date), and speaker’s and consultancy fees, and research funding from Boston Scientific (2019 to date). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and is the current Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Y. Takeuchi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific Japan (2012 to 2022) and has received speaker’s fees from Olympus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, Asuka Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, EA Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Fujifilm, Kaneka Medix, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. H. Uchima Koecklin has received proctorship and speaker’s fees from ERBE Spain and Olympus Iberia (2022 to 2023). E. Albeniz, A. Amato, H. Awadie, P. Bhandari, M. Ferlitsch, I. Gralnek, C. Hassan R. Jover, D. Libanio, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, A. Moss, G. Paspatis, A. Probst, M. Risio, L.-M. Rockenbauer, K. Triantafyllou, A. Voiosu, and E. Waldmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

Inadequate inpatient bowel preparation can lead to repeat procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and increased financial burden. In this quality improvement project, the authors developed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based order set with precise instructions and anticipatory guidance for inpatient bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The current study is a nonrandomized intervention study. The authors compared 2 groups: an intervention group using a newly developed, consensus-based, standardized EMR bowel preparation order set and a control group using previously existing EMR bowel preparation orders. Bowel preparation outcomes were followed over the course of 16 months. The aim was to improve inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, procedure delays, and length of hospital stay. We additionally evaluated the groups' demographics and patient-level factors. A total of 459 inpatient colonoscopies were evaluated over a 16-month period. The intervention group consisted of 227 inpatient colonoscopies, while the control group consisted of 232. The intervention group showed superior Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score and decreased length of hospital stay. The number of adequate bowel preparations increased in the intervention group when compared to the control group from 77% to 86%. The creation of an EMR-based order set is a low-cost and sustainable action that can be easily implemented throughout a hospital system., (Copyright © 2024 the American College of Medical Quality.)

Purpose: The present research was carried out to determine the impact of informing patients who would undergo a colonoscopy via short messaging service (SMS) on the procedure quality and satisfaction., Design: The study was designed as a randomized controlled experimental and single-blind., Methods: The study was completed with 170 patients (87 in the control group and 83 in the intervention group). Verbal and written information about bowel preparation was provided to all patients at the first appointment. Additionally, a total of nine informative SMS, including the time of colonoscopy, dietary restrictions to be followed, purgative drugs to be used, and the time of taking the drugs, were sent to the patients in the intervention group starting 2 days before the procedure. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and postcolonoscopy follow-up form., Findings: The mean score of each colon segment and the total BBPS mean score of the patients in the intervention group were higher compared to the control group, and the difference between them was statistically significant. The percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the intervention group (84.3%) in comparison with the control group (71.3%). The intervention group had high compliance with a clear diet, enema application, and oral medication intake (P < .05). The cecum was reached in 85.5% of the intervention group. The majority of the patients (89.2%) in the intervention group reported that the information provided via SMS was adequate, and 91.6% were satisfied with the information provided by SMS., Conclusions: The study shows that, in addition to written and verbal information provided before colonoscopy, SMS information positively impacts the quality of patients' bowel preparation, increases their compliance with the preparation instructions, the rate of reaching the cecum, and their satisfaction. Patient education with this practice can help ensure adequate bowel preparation quality and increase patient comfort in the colonoscopy procedure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure J. Maranki is a consultant for Boston Scientific.

Background: To assess the quality change of our single-center pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle for bowel preparation and general anesthesia and centralize the procedure using terminal ileum (TI) intubation rate as the main indicator., Methods: All elective colonoscopies performed for patients younger than 18 years old in MacKay Memorial Hospital from July 2015 through June 2020 (assigned to group 1, before bundle) and from August 2020 through July 2021 (assigned to group 2, after bundle) were retrospectively reviewed for demographic characteristics, indications, bowel preparation agent and cleansing level, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, maximum intestinal level reached, and cecal intubation and total procedure time. Statistical analysis was done using P value < 0.05 considered to be significant., Results: Analysis included 45 and 32 colonoscopies in group 1 and 2, respectively. Bloody stool was the most frequent indication in both groups. Both TI intubation rate (42.2 % vs. 75.0 %, P = 0.004) and biopsy rate (45.0 % vs. 75.9 %, P = 0.01) increased significantly from group 1 to group 2. The narrower standard deviation of bowel preparation score (1.93 vs. 1.15) and total procedure time (37.71 vs. 22.29) in group 2 indicated a more stable quality, although the mean showed no difference. There was no statistical difference in age, gender, body weight, cecal intubation rate, or cecal intubation time., Conclusion: A higher TI intubation rate and biopsy rate indicated an improved quality of pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle including bowel preparation and general anesthesia, with additional centralization., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Taiwan Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher proportion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. However, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Quality indicators during the insertion phase of colonoscopy require exploration. Unsatisfactory insertion experiences cause endoscopist psychophysiological fatigue and affect the quality of their inspection. This comparative study used propensity score matching (PSM) to determine whether endoscopist satisfaction during scope insertion was related to polyp detection rate (PDR). Patients who underwent colonoscopy screening between April 2019 and December 2022 were enrolled in this study. The endoscopist satisfaction score (high and low) during the insertion phase in each examination was recorded based on the level of fatigue and presence of paradoxical scope movement. All examinations were classified into 2 groups: a high and a low satisfaction score group. After PSM with potential confounding factors related to polyp detection (endoscopist, insertion and withdrawal time, and sedative agent use), the PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Overall, 4142 patients (average age, 54.1 years old; 54.4% male) underwent colonoscopies performed by twelve experienced endoscopists. Analysis using a logistic regression model revealed that a high satisfaction score during the insertion phase was an independent predictor of polyp detection (P < .001, odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 1.41-2.33), whereas insertion time was not. After PSM, 513 patients from both groups were eligible for comparison. Polyp detection rate and ADR were significantly higher in the high-satisfaction group than in the low-satisfaction group (49.5% vs. 36.6%, P < .001; 35.1% vs. 27.1%, P = .007). The endoscopists' level of satisfaction with the insertion phase was shown to be a potential predictor of PDR in screening colonoscopy.

Background: Endoscopists have low adherence to guideline-recommended colonoscopy surveillance intervals. We performed a cluster-randomized single-blind pilot trial in Winnipeg, Canada, to assess the effectiveness of a newly developed digital application tool that computes guideline-recommended follow-up intervals., Methods: Participant endoscopists were randomized to either receive access to the digital application (intervention group) or not receive access (control group). Pathology reports and final recommendations for colonoscopies performed in the 1-4 months before randomization and 3-7 months postrandomization were extracted. Generalized estimating equation models were used to determine whether the access to the digital application predicted guideline congruence., Results: We included 15 endoscopists in the intervention group and 14 in the control group (of 42 eligible endoscopists in the city), with 343 patients undergoing colonoscopy before randomization and 311 postrandomization. Endoscopists who received the application made guideline-congruent recommendations 67.6% of the time before randomization and 76.1% of the time after randomization. Endoscopists in the control group made guideline-congruent recommendations 72.4% and 72.9% of the time before and after randomization, respectively. Endoscopists in the intervention group trended to have an increase in guideline adherence comparing postintervention with preintervention (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-2.74). By contrast, the control group had no change in guideline adherence (OR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.50-2.29). Endoscopists in the intervention group with less than median guideline congruence prerandomization had a significant increase in guideline-congruent recommendations postrandomization., Discussion: An application that provides colonoscopy surveillance intervals may help endoscopists with guideline congruence, especially those with a lower preintervention congruence with guideline recommendations ( ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT04889352)., (Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting., Methods: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022., Results: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%., Conclusion: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This review aims to summarize the different colorectal cancer guidelines for average-risk and high-risk individuals from various countries., Methods: A comprehensive literature search regarding guidelines, consensus recommendations, or position statements about colorectal cancer screening published within the last 10 years (1 st January 2012 to 27 th August 2022), was performed at EBSCOhost, JSTOR, PubMed, ProQuest, SAGE, and ScienceDirect., Results: A total of 18 guidelines were included in this review. Most guidelines recommended screening between 45 and 75 years for average-risk individuals. Recommendations regarding colorectal cancer screening in high-risk individuals were more varied and depended on the risk factor. For high-risk individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer or advanced colorectal polyp, screening should begin at age 40. Some frequently suggested screening modalities in order of frequency are colonoscopy, FIT, and CTC. Furthermore, several screening intervals were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years for average-risk and every 5-10 years for high-risk individuals, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk individuals, and CTC every five years for all individuals., Conclusion: All individuals with average-risk should undergo colorectal cancer screening between 45 and 75. Meanwhile, individuals with higher risks, such as those with a positive family history, should begin screening at age 40. Several recommended screening modalities were suggested, including colonoscopy every 10 years in average-risk and every 5-10 years in high-risk, FIT annually in average-risk and every 1-2 years in high-risk, and CTC every five years., (© 2023 Caroline Tanadi et al., published by Sciendo.)

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.

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.

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

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.)

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., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American College of Gastroenterology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

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; I 2  = 93.7). Additionally, a significantly higher odds of sessile serrated adenoma detection (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22; I 2  = 0) and a trend towards higher odds of advanced adenoma detection (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.95, I 2  = 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., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

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)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aim: Recently, the BLI Adenoma Serrated International Classification (BASIC) system was developed by European experts to differentiate colorectal polyps. Our aim was to validate the BASIC classification system among the US-based endoscopy experts., Methods: Participants utilized a web-based interactive learning system where the group was asked to characterize polyps using the BASIC criteria: polyp surface (presence of mucus, regular/irregular and [pseudo]depressed), pit appearance (featureless, round/non-round with/without dark spots; homogeneous/heterogeneous distribution with/without focal loss), and vessels (present/absent, lacy, peri-cryptal, irregular). The final testing consisted of reviewing BLI images/videos to determine whether the criteria accurately predicted the histology results. Confidence in adenoma identification (rated "1" to "5") and agreement in polyp (adenoma vs non-adenoma) identification and characterization per BASIC criteria were derived. Strength of interobserver agreement with kappa (k) value was reported for adenoma identification., Results: Ten endoscopy experts from the United States identified conventional adenoma (vs non-adenoma) with 94.4% accuracy, 95.0% sensitivity, 93.8% specificity, 93.8% positive predictive value, and 94.9% negative predictive value using BASIC criteria. Overall strength of interobserver agreement was high: kappa 0.89 (0.82-0.96). Agreement for the individual criteria was as follows: surface mucus (93.8%), regularity (65.6%), type of pit (40.6%), pit visibility (66.9%), pit distribution (57%), vessel visibility (73%), and being lacy (46%) and peri-cryptal (61%). The confidence in diagnosis was rated at high ≥4 in 67% of the cases., Conclusions: A group of US-based endoscopy experts have validated a simple and easily reproducible BLI classification system to characterize colorectal polyps with >90% accuracy and a high level of interobserver agreement., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the colonoscopy quality metric with the strongest association to interval or "missed" cancer. Accurate measurement of ADR can be laborious and costly., Aims: Our aim was to determine if administrative procedure codes for colonoscopy and text searches of pathology results for adenoma mentions could estimate ADR., Methods: We identified US Veterans with a colonoscopy using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes between January 2013 and December 2016 at ten Veterans Affairs sites. We applied simple text searches using Microsoft SQL Server full-text searches to query all pathology notes for "adenoma(s)" or "adenomatous" text mentions to calculate ADRs. To validate our identification of colonoscopy procedures, endoscopists of record, and adenoma detection from the electronic health record, we manually reviewed a random sample of 2000 procedure and pathology notes from the 10 sites., Results: Structured data fields were accurate in identification of colonoscopies being performed (PPV = 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00) and identifying the endoscopist of record (PPV of 0.95; 95% CI 0.94-0.96) for ADR measurement. Simple text searches of pathology notes for adenoma mentions had excellent performance statistics as follows: sensitivity 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.95), NPV 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and PPV 0.93 (0.91-0.94) for measurement of ADR. There was no clinically significant difference in the estimates of overall ADR vs. screening ADR (p > 0.05)., Conclusions: Measuring ADR using administrative codes and text searches from pathology results is an efficient method to broadly survey colonoscopy quality., (© 2020. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)