Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 1/2010

01-01-2010

Quality Criteria for a Good Screening Colonoscopy

Authors: Sunil Dolwani, Krish Ragunath

Published in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Screening for bowel cancer has been shown to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by up to 15%. Colonoscopy is the key investigation, not only for diagnosis but also for removal of precancerous polyps. Hence, the quality of screening colonoscopy is of paramount importance for a successful screening program. In this article, we discuss the criteria that serve as benchmarks for a good screening colonoscopy, taking into account procedural details, colonoscopist skills, and accreditation.
Literature
1.
Yoshimi I, Kaneko S: Comparison of cancer mortality (rectal cancer) in five countries: France, Italy, Japan, UK and USA from WHO mortality database (1960–2000). Jpn J Clin Oncol 2005, 35:224–227.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Hol L, Van Leerdam ME, Van Ballegooijen M, et al.: Screening for colorectal cancer; randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gut 2009 Aug 10 (Epub ahead of print).
3.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al.: Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:130–160.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al.: Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for faecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993, 328:1365–1371.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al.: Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996, 348:1472–1477.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kronberg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al.: Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test. Lancet 1996, 348:1467–1471.CrossRef
7.
Becker F, Nusko G, Welke J, et al.: Benefit-risk analysis of different risk-related surveillance schedules following colorectal polypectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2007, 54:2249–2258.PubMed
8.
Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al.: Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:873–885.PubMed
9.
10.
Neary P, Cahill RA, Kirwan WO, et al.: What a signature adds to the consent process. Surg Endosc 2008, 22:2698–2704.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Coombes JM, Steiner JF, Bekelman DB, et al.: Clinical outcomes associated with attempts to educate patients about lower endoscopy: a narrative review. J Community Heath 2008, 33:149–157.CrossRef
12.
Radaelli F, Menucci G, Teruzzi V, et al.: Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy. A prospective randomised, double blind trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2003, 57:329–335.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Heuss LT, Drewe J, Schnieper P, et al.: Patient controlled versus nurse administered sedation with propofol during colonoscopy. A prospective randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:511–518.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Liao WC, Chiu HM, Chen CC, et al.: A prospective evaluation of the feasibility of primary screening with unsedated colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009, 70:724–731.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Petrini JL, Egan JV, Hahn WV: Unsedated colonoscopy: patient characteristics and satisfaction in a community-based endoscopy unit. Gastrointest Endosc 2009, 69:567–572.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bretthauer M, Lynge AB, Thiis-Evenson E, et al.: Carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: safe and effective in sedated patients. Endoscopy 2005, 37:706–709.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wong JC, Yau KK, Cheung HY, et al.: Towards painless colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial on carbon dioxide-insufflating colonoscopy. ANZ J Surg 2008, 78:871–874.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wexner SD, Forde KA, Sellers G, et al.: How well can surgeons perform colonoscopy? Surg Endosc 1998, 12:1410–1414.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wexner SD, Garbus JE, Singh JJ: The SAGES Colonoscopy Outcomes Study Group: A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies. Reevaluation of credentialing guidelines. Surg Endosc 2001, 15:251–261.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Edwards JK, Norris TE: Colonoscopy in rural communities: can family physicians perform the procedure with safe and efficacious results? J Am Board Fam Pract 2004, 17:3553–3558.CrossRef
21.
Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, et al.: Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc Jun 2009 (Epub ahead of print).
22.
Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al.: Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:2533–2541.CrossRefPubMed
23.
•• Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH, et al.: Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007, 24:965–971. This study, along with the older one by Barclay et al. [22], has been used as a benchmark in the assessment of the quality of withdrawal and correlation with mucosal visualization during colonoscopy.
24.
Barkun A, Chiba N, Enns R, et al.: Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety—a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position paper. Can J Gastroenterol 2006, 20:699–710.PubMed
25.
26.
Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J, et al.: Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61:378–384.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P: Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003, 58:76–79.CrossRefPubMed
28.
East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N, et al.: Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007, 65:263–269.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK: Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:519–522.CrossRefPubMed
30.
East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S, et al.: A comparative study of standard vs high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008, 28:768–776.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Huneberg R, Lammert F, Rabe C, et al.: Chromocolonoscopy detects more adenomas than white light colonoscopy or narrow band imaging in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2009, 41:316–322.CrossRef
32.
Brown SR, Baraza W, Hurlstone P: Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, CD006439.
33.
Togashi K, Hewett DG, Radford-Smith GL, et al.: The use of indigocarmine spray increases the colonoscopic detection rate of adenomas. J Gastroenterol 2009, 44:826–833.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Park SY, Lee SK, Kim BC, et al.: Efficacy of chromoendoscopy with indigocarmine for the detection of ascending colon and cecum lesions. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008, 43:878–885.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Adler A, Pohl H, Papanikolau IS, et al.: A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut 2008, 57:59–64.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Katagiri A, Fu KI, Sano Y, et al.: Narrow band imaging with magnifying colonoscopy as a diagnostic tool for predicting histology of early colorectal neoplasia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008, 27:1269–1274.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH, et al.: Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 Aug 7 (Epub ahead of print).
38.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al.: Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:1296–1308.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al.: Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997, 112:24–28.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Leaper M, Johnston MJ, Barclay M, et al.: Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2004, 36:499–503.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Garbay JR, Suc B, Rotman N, et al.: Multicentre study of surgical complications of colonoscopy. Br J Surg 1996, 83:42–44.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A, et al.: Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999, 31:522–527.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Regula J, Rupinski M, Krawzewska E, et al.: Colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:1863–1872.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zubarik R, Fleischer DE, Mastropietro C, et al.: Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 50:322–328.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, et al.: Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008, 135:1899–1906.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Fu KI, Sano Y, Kato S, et al.: Chromoendoscopy using indigo carmine dye spraying with magnifying observation is the most reliable method for differential diagnosis between non-neoplastic and neoplastic colorectal lesions: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2004, 36:1089–1093.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Matsuda T, Fujii T, Saito Y, et al.: Efficacy of the invasive/non-invasive pattern by magnifying chromoendoscopy to estimate the depth of invasion of early colorectal neoplasms. Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103:2700–2706.CrossRefPubMed
48.
•• Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Alexander S, et al.: Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service. Gastrointest Endosc 2009 Sep 11 (Epub ahead of print). This is an interesting study assessing the clinical and economic impact of advanced endoscopic therapy.
Metadata
Title
Quality Criteria for a Good Screening Colonoscopy
Authors
Sunil Dolwani
Krish Ragunath
Publication date
01-01-2010
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 1556-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1556-3804
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-009-0040-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 1/2010 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Targeting Chemoprevention of Colorectal Cancer to Those Who Are Likely to Respond

Clinical Trial Report

Insights From the Adenoma Prevention With Celecoxib Trial and Risk for Cardiovascular Adverse Events

OriginalPaper

Blood Tests for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer

OriginalPaper

Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Adenomas: Is There an Optimal Follow-up for Colorectal Adenomas?

OriginalPaper

Considering Gender Differences When Planning a Screening Program

Invited Commentary

Implementation of Population Screening Programs—The Challenge and the Role of Local Governments
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits