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 4/2017

01-08-2017 | Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond

Authors: Matthew A. Mason, Brooks D. Cash

Published in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The rationale behind and implementation of quality measures around colonoscopy for colorectal (CRC) screening are important topics for endoscopists to understand to deliver exemplary care with the goal of decreasing the incidence of this disease. This article will evaluate recent data on this subject and summarize pertinent findings in the growing field of quality improvement research surrounding colonoscopy for CRC screening.

Recent Findings

Both pre- and intra-procedural metrics have been studied across a variety of practice models and patient populations. Contemporary metrics include adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, polypectomy rate, proximal serrated polyp detection rate, withdrawal time, and patient satisfaction.

Summary

Multiple quality metrics have been formally evaluated regarding colonoscopy, and others have recently been proposed. Additional validation is necessary to determine which quality metrics serve as practical and implementable to improve endoscopic performance and overall delivery of care.
Literature
1.
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Burke CA, Church JM. Enhancing the quality of colonoscopy: the importance of bowel purgatives. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:565–73.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Thomas-Gibson S, Rogers P, Cooper S, et al. Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates. Endoscopy. 2006;38:456–60.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Menees S. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:519–26.CrossRef
6.
Chokshi R, Hovis C, Hollander T, et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1197–203.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Rex D, Petrini J, Baron T, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:873–85.PubMed
8.
•• Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90. Multi-societal guidelines outlining current quality metrics in colonoscopy. CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kang X, Zhao L, Leung F, et al. Delivery of instructions via mobile social media app increases quality of bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:429–35.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. 2014;63:125–30.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gurudu S, Ramirez F, Harrison M, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:603–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
• Bucci C, Rotondano G, Rea M, et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:566–76. Recent meta-analyses showing the superiority of split-dose bowel preparations compared to single-dose preparations. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, et al. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:79–88.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Calderwood A, Jacobson B. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
•• Lieberman D, Rex D, Winawer S, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–57. US multi-society task force stance of appropriate CRC surveillance intervals, particularly focused on post-polypectomy surveillance, based on updated evidence. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ, et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2664–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:89–95.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rex D. How I approach retroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:9–11.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T, et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:415–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:519–22.CrossRefPubMed
22.
•• Corley D, Jensen C, Marks A, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–306. Landmark article showing the direct relationship between ADR and risk for the development of CRC. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Williams J, Holub J, Faigel D. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:576–82.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut. 2016;65:616–24.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Allen JI. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;17:1–9.CrossRef
28.
Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, et al. Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1259–64.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:452–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:96–102.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M, et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1182–99.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jaramillo E, Tamura S, Mitomi H. Endoscopic appearance of serrated adenomas in the colon. Endoscopy. 2005;37:254–60.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2088–100.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Spring KJ, Zhao ZZ, Karamatic R, et al. High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas with BRAF mutations: a prospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1400–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
• Anderson J, Butterly L, Weiss J, Robinson C. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; doi:10.​1016/​j.​gie.​2017.​01.​020. An important study that proposes appropriate serrated polyp detection rates based on ADR as a surrogate marker of performance.
37.
Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Cowlishaw D, et al. High-definition vs. standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:905–10.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Pellisé M, Fernández-Esparrach G, Cárdenas A, et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1062–8.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Dik V, Moons L, Siersema P. Endoscopic innovations to increased the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(9):2200–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
East JE, Ignjatovic A, Suzuki N, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of narrowband imaging vs high-definition white light for adenoma detection in patients at high risk of adenomas. Color Dis. 2012;14:e771–8.CrossRef
41.
Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–41.CrossRefPubMed
42.
• Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:417–26. Study that supported previous recommendations for withdrawal time and associated increased ADR. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Løberg M, Kalager M, Holme Ø, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):799–807.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Mysliwiec P, Brown ML, Klabunde C, Ransohoff D. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:264–71.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Schoen R, Pinsky P, Weissfeld J, et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:73–81.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Lin O, Kozarek R, Arai A, et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1253–9.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
McQuaid K, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:910–23.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ulmer B, Hansen J, Overley C, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:425–32.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond
Authors
Matthew A. Mason
Brooks D. Cash
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1556-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1556-3804
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-017-0380-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports 4/2017 Go to the issue

Basic Science Foundations in Colorectal Cancer (J Roper, Section Editor)

Resistance Mechanisms to Colorectal Cancer Therapeutics and the Clinical Implications

Radiation Therapy and Radiation Therapy Innovations in Colorectal Cancer (JY Wo, Section Editor)

Biomarkers that Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Basic Science Foundations in Colorectal Cancer (J Roper, Section Editor)

Inflammation and Colorectal Cancer

Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

The Role of CT Colonography as a Screening Tool for Colorectal Cancer

Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

Adenomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Familial Adenomatous Polyposis and MutYH-Associated Polyposis

Systemic Therapies in Colorectal Cancer (RD Kim, Section Editor)

Treatment of Refractory Colorectal Cancer: Regorafenib vs. TAS-102
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