Endoscopy Nurse Participation May Increase the Polyp Detection Rate by Second-Year Fellows during Screening Colonoscopies

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of endoscopy nurse participation on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of second-year fellows during screening colonoscopies.

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, randomized study comparing a fellow alone and a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse as an additional observer during afternoon outpatient screening colonoscopies. The primary end points were PDR and ADR.

Results

One hundred ninety-one colonoscopies performed by a fellow alone and 192 colonoscopies performed by a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse were analyzed. The PDR was significantly higher when the nurse was involved (53.1% vs. 41.3%, p<0.05); however, there was no significant difference in the ADR between the two groups (38.5% vs. 29.8%, p=0.073). There was no difference in the percentage of patients with ≥2 polyps, advanced adenomas, polyp size, polyp location, and polyp shapes between the two groups. There was no difference in the PDR according to the level of experience of the endoscopy nurse.

Conclusions

Endoscopy nurse participation as an additional observer during screening colonoscopy performed by second-year fellow increases the PDR; however, the level of experience of the nurse was not an important factor.     

Lack of Impact on Polyp Detection by Fellow Involvement During Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature.

Aims

Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR.

Methods

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed.

Results

A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8 %, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95 % CI 0.94–1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95 % CI 0.93–1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement.

Conclusions

Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.     

Effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimsThe effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes is controversial. Thus, we evaluated this effect on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and on other colonoscopy quality indicators.MethodsMEDLINE and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched up to September 2018 for studies evaluating fellow-involved colonoscopies vs. attending physicians-only examinations in terms of colonoscopy outcomes. Primary outcome was ADR, while advanced ADR (AADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC), cecum intubation rate (CIR) and adverse events rate comprised the secondary outcomes. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using random-effects model and it is presented as Odds Ratio (OR) or Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsNineteen observational studies involving 34,059 patients (fellow-involved 16,875, attending physician-only 17,184) were included. Compared to the attending physician-only group, fellow involvement marginally increased ADR [OR (95%CI) = 1.12 (1.00–1.26); p = 0.06, I² = 76%]. Attending physicians with low-to-moderate ADR (<35%) benefited most from fellow’s participation [OR (95%CI): 1.26 (1.13–1.40) vs. 1.12 (1.00–1.26); p = 0.03 when ADR < 35% and OR (95%CI): 1.29 (1.13–1.46) vs. 0.95 (0.78–1.16); p = 0.01 when ADR < 30%, respectively]. Moreover, fellow-involved group had higher MAC compared to attending-only group [MD (95%CI) = 0.12 (0.04–0.20); p = 0.002, I² = 53%]. No benefit from fellow involvement was detected either for AADR, CIR or adverse events rate.ConclusionsFellow involvement during colonoscopy is associated with more adenomas detected per procedure and with higher ADR when the attending physician-only group ADR is less than 35%.     

Simple colonoscopy reporting system checking the detection rate of colon polyps

AIM: To present a simple colonoscopy reporting system that can be checked easily the detection rate of colon polyps.METHODS: A simple colonoscopy reporting system Kosin Gastroenterology (KG quality reporting system) was developed. The polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) are easily calculated to use this system.RESULTS: In our gastroenterology center, the PDR, ADR, SDR, and AADR test results from each gastroenterologist were updated, every month. Between June 2014, when the program was started, and December 2014, the overall PDR and ADR in our center were 62.5% and 41.4%, respectively. And the overall SDR and AADR were 7.5% and 12.1%, respectively.CONCLUSION: We envision that KG quality reporting system can be applied to develop a comprehensive system to check colon polyp detection rates in other gastroenterology centers.     

Impact of sedation type on adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy

Background & AimsEndoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas decreases the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The available data concerning the relationship between the sedation type and adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) is inconclusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conscious vs. deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR/PDR in diagnostic and screening colonoscopies.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. Patients aged 50–75 years old presenting for a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were included. Baseline demographic characteristics were collected, as well as PDR and ADR. Endoscopic withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation rated in a binary fashion were also collected. Two multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the independent predictors of endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas.Results574 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 59.26 ± 7.21 with 52.4% females and an average BMI of 28.08 ± 4.89. 374 patients (65.2%) underwent screening colonoscopies, and deep sedation was performed in 200 patients (34.8%). Only 4.7% had bad bowel preparation. PDR was 70% and ADR was 52%. On bivariate analysis, no significant difference was shown in PDR and ADR between conscious and deep sedation groups (0.70, 0.71; p = 0.712 and 0.50, 0.54; p = 0.394, respectively). On multivariate analysis for PDR, age and withdrawal time were independent predictors. For ADR, age, female sex, and withdrawal time were independent predictors. Sedation type and the indication did not reach statistical significance in both models.ConclusionThe use of deep sedation didn't influence the ADR/PDR quality metrics in our mixed cohort of screening and diagnostic colonoscopies.     

Retrograde inspection vs standard forward view for the detection of colorectal adenomas during colonoscopy: A back-to-back randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The adenoma detection rate(ADR) is inversely associated with the incidence of interval colorectal cancer and serves as a benchmark quality criterion during screening colonoscopy. However, adenoma miss rates reach up to 26% and studies have shown that a second inspection of the right colon in retroflected view(RFV) can increase ADR.AIM To assess whether inspection of the whole colon in RFV compared to standard forward view(SFV) can increase ADR.METHODS Patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial and randomized into two arms. In RFV arm colonoscopy was initially performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon in RFV. In the SFV arm first withdrawal was performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon again with SFV. Number, size and morphology of polyps found during first and second inspection in each colonic segment were recorded and all polyps were removed and sent for histopathology in separate containers.RESULTS Two hundred and five patients were randomly assigned to the RFV(n = 101) and SFV(n = 104) arm. In the RFV arm, both polyp detection rate(PDR) and ADR were increased under second inspection in RFV(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 39.8%, PDR 2~(nd)RFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 35.2%, ADR 2~(nd) RFV: 42%). Likewise, in the SFV arm,PDR and ADR were increased under second inspection(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 37.5%, PDR 2~(nd) SFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 34.1%, ADR 2~(nd)SFV: 44.3%) with no significant differences in ADR and PDR between the SFV and RFV arm. Mean number of adenomas per patient(APP) was increased in the RFV and SFV(APP RFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.71; 2~(nd) RFV: 2.38; APP SFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.83, 2~(nd)SFV:2.2). The majority of adenomas additionally found during second inspection in RFV or in SFV were located in the transverse and left-sided colon and were 5 mm in size.CONCLUSION Second inspection of the whole colon leads to increased adenoma detection with no differences between SFV and RFV. Hence, increased detection is most likely a feature of the second inspection itself but not of the inspection mode.     

¿Influye el posible cansancio del endoscopista en la frecuencia de colonoscopias incompletas y de las lesiones polipoideas diagnosticadas?

Introduction

Nowadays, the possible effect of endoscopist fatigue on the results of colonoscopies is under discussion. We aimed to analyze possible differences in cecal intubation and the polyp and adenoma detection rate, depending on whether colonoscopies were performed at the beginning or at the end of the daily endoscopy session and to analyze the influence of the queue position on the detection rate.

Patients and methods

A retrospective study was performed with 1,000 ambulatory and consecutive colonoscopies, divided into 2 groups: «early» and «late» procedures. A total of 95 colonoscopies were excluded due to poor colon cleansing. After confirming that patient characteristics were homogenous in the two groups, we compared the frequency of complete colonoscopies and the polyp and adenoma detection rate. Possible differences between the 2 groups in the polyp detection rate according to the colonoscopy schedule were analyzed.

Results

The overall polyp and adenoma detection rates were 44.2 and 30.5%, respectively, with no significant differences among 13 different endoscopists; polyps: p = 0.21; adenomas: p = 0.63. No significant differences were found between the «early group» (n= 532) and the «late group» (n = 373) in the rates of complete colonoscopies [97.2 vs 99.4% (p = 0.92)], the polyp detection rate [45.9 vs 41.8% (p = 0.23)], the adenoma detection rate [30.8 vs 30% (p = 0.80)] or the serrated adenoma rate [2.1% vs 1.6% (p = 0.62)]. The lesion detection rate did not vary in relation to the «queue position»: polyps [p = 0.60, and adenomas: p = 0.83.

Conclusions

In our series, endoscopist fatigue at the end of the day had no influence on the complete colonoscopy rate or on the polyp and adenoma detection rate. There were no differences in the number of polypoid lesions detected according to the timing of the colonoscopy schedule.     

Data quality and colonoscopy performance indicators in the prevalent round of a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program

Objective: From the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, we aimed (i) to evaluate the quality of recorded data and (ii) to characterize the colonoscopies by measuring variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists and assessing the ratio between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR).

Materials and methods: This study included screening colonoscopies performed in Central Denmark Region within 60 days of a positive FIT-result from 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017. The participants were the colonoscopists, performing these procedures. The quality indicators cecal intubation rate (CIR), PDR, polyp retrieval rate (PRR), ADR and withdrawal time (WT) were evaluated. ADR/PDR ratios were calculated.

Results: The concordance between the recorded data and the colonoscopy reports showed Kappa values in the range of 0.47–0.97. The overall CIR was 90.6% (range 73.7%–100%), PDR: 51.9% (range 18.4%–70.2%), PRR: 94.6% (range 69.6%–100%), ADR (conventional adenomas): 50.6% (range 18.4%–70.2%), ADRx (conventional adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas and sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia): 50.9% (range 18.4%–70.2%) and the mean WT was 11.3?min (range 4.5–24.9?min). The ADR/PDR ratio was 92.8% (95% CI: 92.0%–93.6%) and the ADRx/PDR ratio was 93.2% (95% CI: 92.4%–93.9%).

Conclusion: Data quality was generally high. We found considerable variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists reflecting the potential for improvement. Further, our findings revealed that the PDR might be a good proxy for ADR in the context of the prevalent round of FIT-based CRC screening programs.     

Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy according to lesion location and endoscopist training level

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy(CAC) for detection of colorectal polyps and adenomas according to the lesion location and endoscopist training level.METHODS: Patients 20 years or older, who underwent their first screening colonoscopy in a single tertiary center from May 2011 to December 2012 were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent either CAC or standard colonoscopy(SC), and all of the procedures were performed by 11 endoscopists(8 trainees and 3 experts). All procedures were performed with highdefinition colonoscopes and narrow band imaging. The eight trainees had experiences of performing 150 to 500 colonoscopies, and the three experts had experiences of performing more than 3000 colonoscopies. A 4-mmlong transparent cap was attached to the end of a colonoscope in the CAC group. We retrospectively evaluated the number of polyps and adenomas, polyp detection rate(PDR), and the number of adenomas and adenoma detection rate(ADR) according to the lesion location and endoscopist training level between CAC and SC. We also evaluated the number of polyps and adenomas according to their size between CAC and SC.RESULTS: Overall, PDR and ADR using CAC were significantly higher than those using SC for both whole colon(48.5% vs 40.7%, P = 0.012; 35.7% vs 28.3%, P = 0.012) and right-side colon(35.3% vs 26.6%, P = 0.002; 27.0% vs 16.9%, P 0.001). The number of polyps and adenomas per patient using CAC was significantly higher than that using SC for both the whole colon(1.07 ± 1.59 vs 0.82 ± 1.31, P = 0.008; 0.72 ± 1.32 vs 0.50 ± 1.01, P = 0.003) and right-side colon(0.66 ± 1.18 vs 0.41 ± 0.83, P 0.001; 0.46 ± 0.97 vs 0.25 ± 0.67, P 0.001). In the trainee group, the PDR and ADR using CAC were significantly higher than those using SC for both the whole colon(46.7% vs 39.7%, P = 0.040; 33.9% vs 26.0%, P =0.012) and right-side colon(34.2% vs 26.5%, P = 0.015; 25.3% vs 15.9%, P = 0.001). In the expert group, the PDR and ADR using CAC were significantly higher than those using SC only for the right-side colon(42.1% vs 27.0%, P =0.035; 36.8% vs 21.0%, P = 0.020).CONCLUSION: CAC is more effective than SC for detection of colorectal polyps and adenomas, especially when performed by trainees and when the lesions are located in the right-side colon.     

A simple method to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: Altering patient position

BACKGROUND:

Colonoscopy is currently considered to be the gold standard method for detecting and removing adenomatous polyps. However, tandem colonoscopy studies reveal a pooled polyp miss rate of 22%.

OBJECTIVE:

A prospective randomized trial was conducted to assess whether alteration of patient position during colonoscopy withdrawal increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

METHOD:

The study group included 120 patients who presented for elective colonoscopic examination. After reaching the cecum, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to examination in either the left lateral position or other positions (left lateral position for the cecum, ascending colon and hepatic flexure; supine for transverse colon; and supine and right lateral position for splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon) first. Examination of the colon was performed segment by segment. The size, morphology and location of all polyps were recorded. Polyps were removed immediately after examination of a colon segment when all positions were completed. ADR and polyp detection rates (PDR) were calculated.

RESULTS:

A total of 102 patients completed the study. Examination in the left lateral position revealed 66 polyps in 31 patients (PDR 30.3%) and 42 adenomas in 24 patients (ADR 23.5%). PDR increased to 43.1% (81 polyps in 44 patients) and the ADR to 33.3% (53 adenomas in 34 patients) after the colon was examined in the additional positions (P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively). The increase in the number of adenomas detected was statistically significant in the transverse and sigmoid colon. The addition of position changes led to a 9.8% increase in the ADR in the transverse colon, splenic flexure, and descending and sigmoid colon. The frequency of surveillance interval was shortened in nine (8.8%) patients after examination of the colon in dynamic positions.

CONCLUSION:

Alteration of patient position during colonoscopy withdrawal is a simple and effective method to improve ADR.     

The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background/AimsThe worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led endoscopists to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate whether wearing a face shield as PPE affects the quality of colonoscopy.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records and colonoscopy findings of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Asan Medical Center, Korea from March 10 to May 31, 2020. The colonoscopies in this study were performed by five gastroenterology fellows and four expert endoscopists. We compared colonoscopy quality indicators, such as withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), polypectomy time, and polypectomy adverse events, both before and after face shields were added as PPE on April 13, 2020.ResultsOf the 1,344 colonoscopies analyzed, 715 and 629 were performed before and after the introduction of face shields, respectively. The median withdrawal time was similar between the face shield and no-face shield groups (8.72 minutes vs 8.68 minutes, p=0.816), as was the ADR (41.5% vs 39.8%, p=0.605) and APC (0.72 vs 0.77, p=0.510). Polypectomy-associated quality indicators, such as polypectomy time and polypectomy adverse events were also not different between the groups. Quality indicators were not different between the face shield and no-face shield groups of gastroenterology fellows, or of expert endoscopists.ConclusionsColonoscopy performance was not unfavorably affected by the use of a face shield. PPE, including face shields, can be recommended without a concern about colonoscopy quality deterioration.     

Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) colonoscopy has been reported to increase ADR compared to standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy. Although there are few reports comparing the latest generation and the previous generation of HD colonoscopy equipment, there are reports that the latest generation colonoscopy equipment improves ADR. However, there are no reports on the impact of the latest generation HD colonoscopy on the ADR of trainee endoscopists.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the latest generation HD colonoscopy increases the ADR of trainee endoscopists compared with the previous generation HD colonoscopy.

Method

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients aged 40–79 years old, who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy performed by nine gastroenterology fellows at Dong-A University Hospital from March 2019 to February 2020. We calculated the overall ratios of the ADR: the ADRs of the group using the older generation HD colonoscopy equipment and the group using the latest HD colonoscopy equipment. Polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR) were calculated for each group. Factors related to adenoma detection were identified using logistic regression analysis.

Results

Altogether, 2189 patients were included in the study (the older HD colonoscopy group comprising 1183 and the latest HD colonoscopy group comprising 1006). We found that PDR (45.98 vs. 51.69%, p?=?0.008) and ADR (35.67 vs. 40.85%, p?=?0.013) were significantly higher in the latest generation HD colonoscopy group. The generational differences were not statistically significant for SSPDR (1.94 vs. 2.78%, p?=?0.195) or ANDR (4.65 vs. 4.97%, p?=?0.726). In the multivariate regression analysis, age, male sex, the latest generation HD colonoscopy, and long withdrawal time were the most significant factors affecting adenoma detection.

Conclusions

The latest generation HD colonoscopy improved PDR and ADR by trainee endoscopists. These findings suggest that latest generation, higher-resolution colonoscopy equipment can improve the quality of colonoscopy for less experienced endoscopists.

     

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUNDLow-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking. AIMTo compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.METHODSConsecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.RESULTSTotal 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02–1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26–2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONIn a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.     

Feasibility of full-spectrum endoscopy:Korea’s first full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopic trial

AIM: To evaluate the full-spectrum endoscopy(FUSE) colonoscopy system as the first report on the utility thereof in a Korean population.METHODS: We explored the efficacy of the FUSE colonoscopy in a retrospective, single-center feasibility study performed between February 1 and July 20, 2015. A total of 262 subjects(age range: 22-80) underwent the FUSE colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation. The cecal intubation success rate, the polyp detection rate(PDR), the adenoma detection rate(ADR), and the diverticulum detection rate(DDR), were calculated. Also, the success rates of therapeutic interventions were evaluated with biopsy confirmation.RESULTS: All patients completed the study and the success rates of cecal and terminal ileal intubation were 100% with the FUSE colonoscope; we found 313 polyps in 142 patients and 173 adenomas in 95. The overall PDR, ADR and DDR were 54.2%, 36.3%, and 25.2%, respectively, and were higher in males, and increased with age. The endoscopists and nurses involved considered that the full-spectrum colonoscope improved navigation and orientation within the colon.No colonoscopy was aborted because of colonoscope malfunction.CONCLUSION: The FUSE colonoscopy yielded a higher PDR, ADR, DDR than did traditional colonoscopy, without therapeutic failure or complications, showing feasible, effective, and safe in this first Korean trial.     

Retrospective analysis of missed advanced adenomas on surveillance colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Miss rates of large polyp/cancer during colonoscopy are reported from tertiary centers where experts do the colonoscopies. This information is important for determining surveillance intervals for repeat colonoscopy, patient safety, and malpractice issues. We evaluated retrospectively the miss rates of advanced adenomas in the setting of a GI fellowship training where most colonoscopies are done by closely supervised fellows. METHODS: We reviewed the 235 patients who had at least one repeat colonoscopy after initial polypectomy, between 1992 and 1999, at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Advanced adenomas were defined as polyps 10 mm or greater in size with or without a villous component or high-grade dysplasia. Data of missed advanced adenomas on 122 patients who had complete colonoscopy with satisfactory preparation and the excluded patients are reported. RESULTS: Four advanced adenomas (one had intramucosal cancer) on second colonoscopy and two advanced adenomas on third colonoscopy were missed. The miss rate of advanced adenoma for 232 patients was 1.7%, and the miss rate for the 122 patients with complete colonoscopy and satisfactory colon preparation was 2.5% and 3.3% on second and third repeat colonoscopy, respectively. No cancer was missed. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows an advanced polyp miss rate that is comparable with other studies even in a fellowship training setting. Prospective studies with tandem surveillance colonoscopy are needed to confirm our findings.     

Artificial intelligence technologies for the detection of colorectal lesions: The future is now

Several studies have shown a significant adenoma miss rate up to 35% during screening colonoscopy, especially in patients with diminutive adenomas. The use of artificial intelligence(AI) in colonoscopy has been gaining popularity by helping endoscopists in polyp detection, with the aim to increase their adenoma detection rate(ADR) and polyp detection rate(PDR) in order to reduce the incidence of interval cancers. The efficacy of deep convolutional neural network(DCNN)-based AI system for polyp detection has been trained and tested in ex vivo settings such as colonoscopy still images or videos. Recent trials have evaluated the real-time efficacy of DCNN-based systems showing promising results in term of improved ADR and PDR. In this review we reported data from the preliminary ex vivo experiences and summarized the results of the initial randomized controlled trials.     

Detection rate and proximal shift tendency of adenomas and serrated polyps: a retrospective study of 62,560 colonoscopies

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to estimate the detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps and to identify proximalization and associate risk factors in patients from Southern China.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy from 2004 to 2013 in Guangzhou were included. The proportions of proximal adenomas to advanced adenomas and serrated polyps were compared and potential predictors were evaluated.

Results

Colonoscopies (n?=?62,560) were performed, and 11,427 patients were diagnosed with polyps. Detection rates for adenomas, hyperplastic polyps, and serrated adenomas were 12.0, 2.5, and 0.2 patients per 100 colonoscopies. When comparing the 1st (2004–2008) to the 2nd period (2009–2013), adenoma and serrated polyp detection in proximal and distal colon both increased significantly (proximal colon [adenoma 3.9 vs. 6.1 patients/100 colonoscopies, P?<?0.001; serrated polyp 0.4 vs. 1.1 patients/100 colonoscopies, P?<?0.001]; distal colon [adenoma 6.6 vs. 7.2 patients/100 colonoscopies, P?=?0.003; serrated polyp 1.2 vs. 2.4 patients/100 colonoscopies, P?<?0.001]). Advanced adenoma detection increased over these two periods only in proximal colon (1st vs. 2nd period: 1.5 vs. 2.4 patients/100 colonoscopies, P?<?0.001), not the distal colon (P?=?0.114). Multivariate analyses showed that diagnostic period was an independent predictor for adenoma proximalization (OR?=?1.36, 95% CI 1.25–1.48, P?<?0.001), but not for advanced adenomas (P?=?0.117) or serrated polyps (P?=?0.928).

Conclusions

Adenomas and serrated polyps were increasingly detected throughout the colon, whereas advanced adenomas were only in proximal colon. A proximal shift tendency detected by colonoscopy was observed for adenomas, but not advanced adenomas or serrated polyps, in Southern China. The screening for proximal polyps should be emphasized and colonoscopy might be a preferred initial screening tool.

     

Improved adenoma detection with linked color imaging technology compared to white-light colonoscopy

Abstract

Objectives

Linked color imaging (LCI) is a new endoscopic technology that may increase colorectal adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) by virtual chromoendoscopy. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of LCI in ADR and PDR compared to the HD white-light colonoscopy (WLC) technique.     

When should we perform colonoscopy to increase the adenoma detection rate?

The rate of adenoma detection is the most reliable quality indicator of colonoscopy. Studies have reported that colonoscopy performed in morning has a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) than that performed in the afternoon. These studies have explained that several physician-related factors such as undergoing an emergency procedure the night before colonoscopy, accumulated workload, and increased fatigue level in the afternoon might have led to such finding. However, several opposing articles have indicated that the time of day and ADR is not quite related. Complex confounding factors can impact study results. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and bowel preparation quality are key factors. However, queue list numbers, participation of academic fellows, nurses' assistance, and the number of colonoscopies allocated per hour are also notable factors. Recently, an attempt has been made to homogenize the ADR in the morning and afternoon through artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy. This review article introduces the history of this long-debated topic, discusses points to consider in real-world practice, and suggests new ideas for planning future research. By understanding this issue, the rate of adenoma detection during colonoscopy is expected to be improved further.