Search

Traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) may confer increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective with this study was to examine clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes associated with TSA diagnosis.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of U.S. Veterans ≥18 years of age with ≥1 TSA between 1999 and 2016. Baseline characteristics, colonoscopy findings, and diagnosis of incident and fatal CRC were abstracted. Advanced neoplasia was defined by CRC or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, villous histology, or size ≥1 cm. Follow-up was through CRC diagnosis, death, or end of study (December 31, 2018).A total of 853 Veterans with a baseline TSA were identified; 74% were ≥60 years of age, 96% were men, 14% were Black, and 73% were non-Hispanic White. About 64% were current or former smokers. Over 2044 total person-years at follow-up, there were 11 incident CRC cases and 1 CRC death. Cumulative CRC incidence was 1.34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67%-2.68%), and cumulative CRC death was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.35%). Among the subset of 378 TSA patients with ≥1 surveillance colonoscopy, 65.1% had high-risk neoplasia on follow-up. CRC incidence among TSA patients was significantly higher than in a comparison cohort of patients with normal baseline colonoscopy at baseline (hazard ratio, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.63-8.41) and similar to a comparison cohort with baseline conventional advanced adenoma (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.45-1.64).Individuals with TSA have substantial risk for CRC, based on their cumulative CRC incidence, as well as significant risk of developing other high-risk neoplasia at follow-up surveillance colonoscopy. These data underscore importance of current recommendations for close colonoscopy surveillance after TSA diagnosis.

Background As right colon polyps are challenging to detect, a retroflexed view of right colon (RV) may be useful. However, cecal retroflexion (CR) without a RV to the hepatic flexure (HF) is inadequate. We aimed to determine the frequency of CR and quality of the RV in routine practice. Methods This prospective observational study performed at an academic medical center assessed colonoscopy inspection technique of endoscopists who had performed ≥ 100 annual screening colonoscopies. We video recorded ≥ 28 screening/surveillance colonoscopies per endoscopist and randomly evaluated 7 videos per endoscopist. Six gastroenterologists blindly reviewed the videos to determine if CR was performed and HF withdrawal time (cecum to HF time, excluding ileal/polypectomy time). Results Reviewers assessed 119 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists. The median HF withdrawal time was 3 min and 46 s. CR was performed in 31% of colonoscopies. CR frequency varied between endoscopists with 9 never performing CR and 2 performing CR in all colonoscopies. When performed, nearly half (43%) of RVs did not extend to the HF with median RV duration of 16 s (IQR 9–30 s). Three polyps were identified in the RV (polyp detection rate of 8.1%), all identified prior to a forward view. Conclusions CR is performed infrequently in routine practice. When CR is performed, the RV is of low quality with a very short inspection duration and insufficient ascending colon examination. Further education is required to educate endoscopists in optimal technique to improve overall colonoscopy quality.

COVID-19 brings vulnerability, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity to endoscopy education. The opportunities for fellows to hone their skills and prepare for independent practice may become limited. To optimize and improve their learning opportunities, we will need to adapt contemporary methods of learning: ML and SBML. These methods allow for structured training by deliberate practice with feedback. We need to require learners to demonstrate mastery of endoscopic skills on the simulators prior to performing procedures in clinical care. In doing so, we ensure safety and deliver quality treatment for our patients. The collective enthusiasm observed among the trainees, their interest to learn endoscopy through virtual SBML, and the rewarding outcome witnessed as never before, lends support to wide-spread renewal of endoscopy training methodology in the post-COVID era.

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. Our aim was to determine if administrative procedure codes for colonoscopy and text searches of pathology results for adenoma mentions could estimate ADR. 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. 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). Measuring ADR using administrative codes and text searches from pathology results is an efficient method to broadly survey colonoscopy quality.

Background Although validated colonoscopy assessment tools exist, they do not measure efficiency. This study aimed to assess content validity of polypectomy efficiency (PE) and neoplastic polypectomy efficiency (NPE) as colonoscopy efficiency indices. Methods Data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating polypectomy among gastroenterology trainees were utilized. PE and NPE were defined as number of polyps (or neoplastic polyps) removed/withdrawal time × 100. Content validity was assessed by determining the association between efficiency indices and polypectomy times. Results 20 trainees performed 601 colonoscopies. There was a strong association between PE/NPE and actual polypectomy times: as polypectomy time increased by 1 minute, the PE decreased by 0.48 (P = 0.001) and NPE decreased by 0.24 (P = 0.03). Conclusions The study proposed and provided content validity for PE and NPE as colonoscopy efficiency indices.

Training practicing physicians to adopt new technology may be difficult because most endoscopy training is given during fellowship training. As such, the adoption of new technology in gastroenterology is typically slow. We designed our course to train our cohort of practicing physicians using flipped learning, a pedagogical approach in which instructional cognitive content is delivered to the individual instead of the group, usually through online platforms and outside of the classroom. We describe our methods and results of the training courses on the techniques of clipping over the scope for gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic balloon dilation.

Clipping over the scope (C-OTS) is a novel closure technique used for the treatment of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding, especially for high-risk lesions. C-OTS devices cost more than clipping through the scope and thermal devices. The high upfront cost of C-OTS may pose a barrier to its use and the cost-effectiveness of C-OTS for peptic ulcer disease bleeding is unknown. Cost-effectiveness studies of C-OTS for peptic ulcer bleeding as both first-line and second-line therapy can provide the current estimate of the conditions in which the use of C-OTS is cost-effective and give insights of the determinants to the cost-effectiveness of C-OTS.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Aspirin impacts risk for important outcomes such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and gastrointestinal bleeding. However, ascertaining exposure to medications available both by prescription and over-the-counter such as aspirin for research and quality improvement purposes is a challenge. Objectives: Develop and validate a strategy for ascertaining aspirin exposure, utilizing a combination of structured and unstructured data. Research Design: This is a retrospective cohort study. Subjects: In total, 1,869,439 Veterans who underwent usual care colonoscopy 1999–2014 within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Measures: Aspirin exposure and dose were obtained from an ascertainment strategy combining query of structured medication records available in electronic health record databases and unstructured data extracted from free-text progress notes. Prevalence of any aspirin exposure and dose-specific exposure were estimated. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were used to assess strategy performance, using manual chart review as the reference standard. Results: Our combined strategy for ascertaining aspirin exposure using structured and unstructured data reached a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 99.2% and 97.5% for any exposure, and 92.6% and 98.3% for dose-specific exposure. Estimated prevalence of any aspirin exposure was 36.3% (95% confidence interval: 36.2%–36.4%) and dose-specific exposure was 35.4% (95% confidence interval: 35.3%–35.5%). Conclusions: A readily accessible approach utilizing a combination of structured medication records and query of unstructured data can be used to ascertain aspirin exposure when manual chart review is impractical.

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality assurance measure for colonoscopy. Some studies suggest that narrow-band imaging (NBI) may be more effective at detecting adenomas than white-light endoscopy (WLE) when bowel preparation is optimal. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of NBI to WLE in detection of adenomas. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that assessed detection of colon polyps by high-definition WLE vs NBI and from which data on individual patients were available. The primary outcome measure was ADR adjusted for bowel preparation quality. Multilevel regression models were used with patients nested within trials, and trial included as a random effect. Results We collected data from 11 trials, comprising 4491 patients and 6636 polyps detected. Adenomas were detected in 952 of 2251 (42.3%) participants examined by WLE vs 1011 of 2239 (45.2%) participants examined by NBI (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] for detection of adenoma by WLE vs NBI, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29; P = .04). NBI outperformed WLE only when bowel preparation was best: adequate preparation OR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.24; P = .38) vs best preparation OR, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P = .02). Second-generation bright NBI had a better ADR than WLE (second-generation NBI OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.56; P = .02), whereas first-generation NBI did not. NBI detected more non-adenomatous polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.44; P = .008) and flat polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.51; P = .03). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials, we found NBI to have a higher ADR than WLE, and that this effect is greater when bowel preparation is optimal.

The way endoscopists hold and manipulate the endoscope during examination varies. The lack of a standard manual on how to hold and manipulate the endoscope has perhaps contributed to the variation seen in practice. Unfortunately, the knowledge of how to properly hold the endoscope is not innate. What seems to be the simplest form may actually be incorrect. Developing the ability to hold and to manipulate the endoscope correctly requires practice and time. We are very pleased to contribute to this chapter given the paucity of literature and the importance of this foundational technique when performing endoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs.We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75.We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills.In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components-specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique.

Background Diminutive colorectal polyps resected during colonoscopy are sometimes histologically interpreted as normal tissue. The aim of this observational study was to explore whether errors in specimen handling or processing account in part for polyps ≤ 3 mm in size being interpreted as normal tissue by pathology when they were considered high confidence adenomas by an experienced endoscopist at colonoscopy. Methods One endoscopist photographed 900 consecutive colorectal lesions that were ≤ 3 mm in size and considered endoscopically to be high confidence conventional adenomas. The photographs were reviewed blindly to eliminate poor quality images. The remaining 644 endoscopy images were reviewed by two external experts who predicted the histology while blinded to the pathology results. Results Of 644 consecutive lesions ≤ 3 mm in size considered high confidence conventional adenomas by a single experienced colonoscopist, 15.4 % were reported as normal mucosa by pathology. The prevalence of reports of normal mucosa in polyps removed by cold snare and cold forceps were 15.2 % and 16.0 %, respectively. When endoscopy photographs were reviewed by two blinded outside experts, the lesions found pathologically to be adenomas and normal mucosa were interpreted as high confidence adenomas by endoscopic appearance in 96.9 % and 93.9 %, respectively, by Expert 1 (P = 0.15), and in 99.6 % and 100 %, respectively, by Expert 2 (P = 0.51). Conclusion Retrieval and/or processing of tissue specimens of tiny colorectal polyps resulted in some lesions being diagnosed as normal tissue by pathology despite being considered endoscopically to be high confidence adenomas. These findings suggest that pathology interpretation is not a gold standard for lesion management when this phenomenon is observed.

Purpose Cancer ascertainment using large-scale electronic health records is a challenge. Our aim was to propose and apply a structured approach for evaluating multiple candidate approaches for cancer ascertainment using colorectal cancer (CRC) ascertainment within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a use case. Methods The proposed approach for evaluating cancer ascertainment strategies includes assessment of individual strategy performance, comparison of agreement across strategies, and review of discordant diagnoses. We applied this approach to compare three strategies for CRC ascertainment within the VA: administrative claims data consisting of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) diagnosis codes; the VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR); and the newly accessible Oncology Domain, consisting of cases abstracted by local cancer registrars. The study sample consisted of 1,839,043 veterans with index colonoscopy performed from 1999 to 2014. Strategy-specific performance was estimated based on manual record review of 100 candidate CRC cases and 100 colonoscopy controls. Strategies were further compared using Cohen’s κ and focused review of discordant CRC diagnoses. Results A total of 92,197 individuals met at least one CRC definition. All three strategies had high sensitivity and specificity for incident CRC. However, the ICD9-based strategy demonstrated poor positive predictive value (58%). VACCR and Oncology Domain had almost perfect agreement with each other (κ, 0.87) but only moderate agreement with ICD9-based diagnoses (κ, 0.51 and 0.57, respectively). Among discordant cases reviewed, 15% of ICD9-positive but VACCR- or Oncology Domain–negative cases had incident CRC. Conclusion Evaluating novel strategies for identifying cancer requires a structured approach, including validation against manual record review, agreement among candidate strategies, and focused review of discordant findings. Without careful assessment of ascertainment methods, analyses may be subject to bias and limited in clinical impact.

Background There is debate on the best method of colorectal cancer(CRC) surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease(IBD). We examined how gastroenterologists around the world practise CRC surveillance and manage dysplastic lesions in IBD. Methods A 22-question survey was emailed to gastroenterologists from 34 countries. It included questions on resources for, frequency and mode of CRC surveillance, and management of colorectal dysplasia. The Fisher's exact test and logistic regression were used to evaluate differences among respondents in various domains. Results There were 217 eligible responses, with majority of gastroenterologists working in public hospitals(76%), and treating >10 IBD patients weekly(71%). High-definition white light endoscopy(HDWLE) was available in 93.1% of the centres. The most preferred mode of surveillance was HDWLE with dye-spray chromoendoscopy and targeted biopsies(41.2%). Less than 50% of physicians reported using chromoendoscopy in >50% of cases, citing time as limiting factor(73.7%). Sixty-three percent of gastroenterologists "infrequently"( 10 mm(67.2%), including those >20 mm with low grade dysplasia(LGD)(49.8%), and non-polypoid lesions >10 mm without dysplasia(56.9%). For non-polypoid lesions >20 mm with low- and high-grade dysplasia, referral to expert endoscopists was the preferred option. Conclusion The most preferred method of colorectal cancer surveillance was HDWLE with chromoendoscopy and targeted biopsies. Random biopsies were infrequently performed. The uptake of chromoendoscopy for surveillance in practice was low, with time as the limiting factor. We also observed that physicians varied in their approach in removal of endoscopically resectable dysplastic lesions.

Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard treatment for large colorectal polyps. However, it is a specialized technique with limited data on the effectiveness of training methods to acquire this skill. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of observational training on EMR outcomes and competency in an early-stage endoscopist. Patients and methods A single endoscopist completed comprehensive EMR training, which included knowledge acquisition and direct observation of EMR cases, and proctored supervision, during the third year of gastroenterology fellowship. After training, EMR was independently attempted on 142 consecutive, large (i. e., ≥ 20 mm), non-pedunculated colorectal polyps between July 2014 and December 2017 (mean age 61.7 years; mean polyp size 30.4 mm; en-bloc resection 55 %). Surveillance colonoscopy for evaluation of residual neoplasia was available for 86 % of the cases. Three primary outcomes were evaluated: endoscopic assessment of complete resection, rate of adverse events (AEs), and rate of residual neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy. Results Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 93 % of cases, the rates of AEs and residual neoplasia were 7.8 % and 7.3 %, respectively. The rate of complete resection remained stable (at 85 % or greater) with increasing experience while rates of AEs and residual neoplasia peaked and decreased after 60 cases. Conclusions An early-stage endoscopist can acquire the skills to perform effective EMR after completing observational training. At least 60 independent EMRs for large colorectal polyps were required to achieve a plateau for clinically meaningful outcomes.

Endoscopic treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding can be challenging. This article reports on the use of the endoscopic clipping over the scope technique to treat acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding. In particular, it describes the approaches and outcomes of using the technique for acute severe bleeding in the colon and the anal transition zone. The following synopsis is the one that you supplied, but lightly copyedited. Please confirm OK. Please note that the synopsis will appear in PubMed: Endoscopic treatment of lower gastrointestinal bleeding can be challenging. This article reports on the use of the endoscopic clipping over the scope technique to treat acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding. In particular, it describes the approaches and outcomes of using the technique for acute severe bleeding in the colon and the anal transition zone.

During endoscopy, the resect and discard strategy, if performed with high confidence, can be used to determine histologic features of diminutive colorectal polyps (5 mm or less). These polyps can then be removed and discarded without pathology assessment. However, the complexities of real-time optical assessment and follow-up management have provided challenges to widespread use of this approach. We aimed to determine the outcomes of simple alternative strategies, in which all diminutive polyps can be resected and discarded.We collected data from 2 previous studies that used narrow-band imaging to assess polyps, performed at 5 medical centers (1658 patients with 2285 diminutive polyps; 15 endoscopists). We compared 3 resect and discard strategies: the currently used optical strategy, which relies on high confidence optical assessment of all diminutive polyps; a location-based strategy that classifies all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps a priori as hyperplastic and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon a priori as neoplastic; and a simplified optical strategy, in which all recto-sigmoid diminutive polyps are classified as hyperplastic unless confidently assessed as neoplastic, and all polyps proximal to the recto-sigmoid colon are classified as neoplastic unless confidently assessed as hyperplastic polyps. The primary outcome was the agreement of the surveillance interval calculated for each strategy with the surveillance interval determined by pathology analysis.The proportion of surveillance intervals that agreed with pathology-based surveillance recommendations was slightly higher when the optical strategy was used compared to the location-based strategy or simplified optical strategy (94% vs 89% and 90%, respectively; P .001). When the 5-10 year recommendations for patients with low-risk polyps were applied as a 10-year surveillance interval, all 3 strategies resulted in surveillance interval agreement compared to pathology above 90% (the quality benchmark). Use of the simplified or location-based strategy could have avoided pathology analysis for 77% of all polyps, compared to 59% if the optical strategy was used (P.001). In addition, a higher proportion of patients could receive recommendations immediately after colonoscopy with use of the simplified or location based strategy (65%) compared to the optical strategy (40%) (P .001).A location-based and a simplified optical resect and discard strategy produced surveillance recommendations that were in agreement with those from pathology analysis for at least 90% of patients, assuming a 10-year surveillance interval for patients with low-risk polyps. These strategies could further reduce the number of pathology examinations and provide more patients with immediate surveillance recommendations. Optical assessment might be reduced or might not be required for resect and discard. Clintrials.gov no: NCT01935180 and NCT01288833.

In the last few years, interest in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps has increased among gastroenterologists. Several studies have shown that the optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps is safe and feasible in routine clinical practice and is comparable to histopathology. The Narrow-band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classifica tion provides a validated criterion for the classification of neo plastic and nonneoplastic polyps as well as polyps with deep submucosal invasion using narrow band imaging during real-time colonoscopy. The aim of the present review is to assess the current evidence for and limitations of optical diagnosis and to propose a systematic approach for transferring re search findings to patient care. (Gut Liver 2018;12:385-392)

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, with invited experts, developed a consensus statement and recommendations to assist health care providers with appropriate management of patients with biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD) syndrome, also called constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. This position paper outlines what is known about BMMRD, the unique genetic and clinical aspects of the disease, and reviews the current management approaches to this disorder. This article represents a starting point from which diagnostic and management decisions can undergo rigorous testing for efficacy. There is a lack of strong evidence and a requirement for further research. Nevertheless, providers need direction on how to recognize and care for BMMRD patients today. In addition to identifying areas of research, this article provides guidance for surveillance and management. The major challenge is that BMMRD is rare, limiting the ability to accumulate unbiased data and develop controlled prospective trials. The formation of effective international consortia that collaborate and share data is proposed to accelerate our understanding of this disease.

Training practicing physicians to adopt new technology may be difficult because most endoscopy training is given during fellowship training. As such, the adoption of new technology in gastroenterology is typically slow. We designed our course to train our cohort of practicing physicians using flipped learning, a pedagogical approach in which instructional cognitive content is delivered to the individual instead of the group, usually through online platforms and outside of the classroom. We describe our methods and results of the training courses on the techniques of clipping over the scope for gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic balloon dilation.

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key measure of colonoscopy quality. However, efficient measurement of ADR can be challenging because many colonoscopies are performed for non-screening purposes. Measuring ADR without being restricted to screening indication may likely facilitate more widespread implementation of quality monitoring. We hypothesized that the ADR for all colonoscopies, irrespective of the indication, would be equivalent to the ADR for screening colonoscopies. Methods We reviewed consecutive colonoscopies at two Veterans Affairs centers performed by 21 endoscopists over 6 months in 2015. We calculated the ADR for screening exams, non-screening (surveillance and diagnostic) exams, and all exams (irrespective of indication), correcting for within-endoscopist correlation. We then performed simulation modeling to calculate the ADRs under 16 hypothetical scenarios of various indication distributions. We simulated 100,000 trials with 3,000 participants, randomly assigned indication (screening, surveillance, diagnostic, and FIT+) from a multinomial distribution, randomly drew adenoma using the observed ADRs per indication, and calculated 95% confidence intervals of the mean differences in ADR of screening and non-screening indications. Results Among 2628 colonoscopies performed by 21 gastroenterologists, the indication was screening in 28.9%, surveillance in 48.2% and diagnostic in 22.9%. There was no significant difference in the ADR, 50% (95%CI: 45-56%) for all colonoscopies vs 49% (95%CI: 43-56%) for screening exams (p=.55). ADRs were 56% for surveillance and 38% for diagnostic exams. In our simulation modeling, only one out of 16 scenarios (screening 10%, surveillance 70%, diagnostic 10% and FIT+ 10%) resulted in a significant difference between the calculated ADRs for screening and non-screening indications. Conclusions In our study, the overall ADR computed from all colonoscopies was not significantly different than the conventional ADR based on screening colonoscopies. Assessing ADR for colonoscopy irrespective of indication may be adequate for quality monitoring, and could facilitate the implementation of quality measurement and reporting. Future prospective studies should evaluate the validity of using overall ADR for quality reporting in other jurisdictions before adopting this method in clinical practice.