Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Screening colonoscopy (SC) outcome quality is best determined by the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The substantial variability in the ADRs between endoscopists may reflect different skills, experience and/or equipment. Objective To analyse the potential factors that may influence ADR variance, including case volume. Design 12 134 consecutive SCs (mean age 64.5 years, 47% men) from 21 Berlin private-practice colonoscopists were prospectively studied during 18 months. The data were analysed using a two-level mixed linear model to adequately address the characteristics of patients and colonoscopists. The ADR was regressed after considering the following factors: sex, age, bowel cleanliness, NSAID intake, annual SC case volume, lifetime experience, instrument withdrawal times, instrument generations used, and the number of annual continuing medical education (CME) meetings attended by the physician. The case volume was also retrospectively analysed from the 2007 national SC registry data (312 903 colonoscopies and 1004 colonoscopists). Results The patient factors that correlated with the ADR were sex, age (p<0.001) and low quality of bowel preparation (p=0.005). The factors that were related to the colonoscopists were the number of CME meetings attended (p=0.012) and instrument generation (p=0.001); these factors accounted for approximately 40% of the interphysician variability. Within a narrow range (6–11 min), the withdrawal time was not correlated with the ADR. Annual screening case volume did not correlate with the ADR, and this finding was confirmed by the German registry data. Conclusions The outcome quality of screening colonoscopies is mainly influenced by individual colonoscopist factors (ie, CME activities) and instrument quality. Clinical trial registration number Clinical Trial Gov Registration number: NCT00860665.

Background: Longer cecal withdrawal time has been linked to a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR), with a minimum duration of 6 min recommended. Therefore, we developed the cecal withdrawal vocal timer (CWVT), a novel software tool that is command-activated at cecal intubation and vocally informs the endoscopist of the withdrawal duration every minute. Objectives: Evaluating the efficacy of the CWVT in enhancing adenoma detection. Design: A retrospective, single-center study of screening colonoscopies with adequate preparation and documented cecal intubation. Methods: The primary endpoint was the change in the department’s ADR before (2022) and after the CWVT introduction (January 2023–February 2024). Secondary endpoints included the ADR change between procedures with and without CWVT after its introduction and the ADR change among individual endoscopists. Results: The study included 1098 and 1330 eligible colonoscopies pre- and post-CWVT introduction, respectively. Following CWVT introduction, 67.3% of colonoscopies were performed with activated CWVT, with a median withdrawal time of 8.7 (interquartile range: 6.9–11.8) min. The department ADR was 25.5% following CWVT introduction, without a significant difference compared to the year before (26.2%, p = 0.71). During the post-CWVT implementation period, colonoscopies with activated CWVT had higher ADR than those without (28.4% vs 19.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). The improvement was mainly driven by the detection of adenomas smaller than 10 mm and was consistent across 11 out of 12 months in this period and among most endoscopists. Conclusion: While an overall ADR improvement was not achieved with the CWVT, the ADR was higher in post-CWVT procedures that utilized the CWVT than those that did not, warranting further prospective studies to evaluate CWVT’s contribution to screening colonoscopy performance. Plain language summary Evaluation of a novel vocal timer in screening colonoscopies for optimizing adenoma detection A cecal withdrawal time of more than six minutes is an established quality measure for screening colonoscopies, as it allows adequate inspection of the colon lining. We developed a novel real-time cecal withdrawal vocal timer (CWVT), which is activated by voice command when the endoscopist reaches the cecum with the scope and announces the withdrawal time every minute. After introducing the CWVT, the overall adenoma detection rate (ADR) in our department did not improve compared to the previous year. However, during this period, colonoscopies performed with the CWVT had a higher ADR than those without, particularly for adenomas smaller than 10 mm. While the overall ADR remained unchanged, the increased detection with CWVT activation suggests that further studies are needed to explore its potential benefits.

BackgroundThis study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.MethodsPubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).ResultsA total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.DiscussionThis study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Abstract Objectives The real-world efficacy of computer-aided detection (CADe) in improving surveillance colonoscopy performance for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been established. Methods A retrospective, single-center study of surveillance colonoscopies in patients with IBD. Only colonoscopies indicated for surveillance, with adequate preparation and documented cecal intubation, were included. The study compared the collective adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the periods before (pre-CADe) (June 2020 to June 2021) and after (July 2021 to September 2022) the introduction of the CADe in all endoscopy units. An adjusted ADR was calculated using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results The study included 225 eligible colonoscopies performed during the pre-CADe period and 750 during the CADe period. Neoplastic lesions or colorectal cancer were detected in 13 (5.8%) of 225 procedures in the pre-CADe period and 27 (3.6%) of 750 procedures during the CADe period. The collective ADR was 5.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-6.6) in the pre-CADe period and 3.8% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-6.5) ­following CADe implementation (P = .315). Subgroup analyses stratified by endoscopist experience, IBD type, and procedure timing (daytime vs after hours) corroborated a similar nonsignificant declining trend in ADR after CADe introduction. Conclusions In a real-world, single-center experience, the introduction of CADe did not improve neoplasms detection in patients with IBD and was associated with a nonsignificant decline in ADR. These findings call into question the utility of generic CADe systems in IBD surveillance and emphasize the need to foster IBD-specific CADe systems, as well as addressing challenges arising from physician–artificial intelligence interactions. Lay Summary In this study, the introduction of computer-aided detection did not improve the department adenoma detection rate in surveillance colonoscopy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. These findings highlight the need for inflammatory bowel disease–specific computer-aided detection and for addressing challenges related to physician–artificial intelligence interactions.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major concern because of its increasing incidence and mortality worldwide. Therefore, effective screening strategies are necessary to reduce its incidence. Summary: In addition to fecal immunochemical tests and computed tomography colonography, screening colonoscopy is expected to significantly contribute to the reduction of CRC. However, the timing of colonoscopy for CRC screening is not well-defined because of the lack of sufficient data. Additionally, the effectiveness of colonoscopy is affected by various factors known as quality indicators (QIs), such as the performance of the endoscopist; therefore, there are concerns regarding quality assurance. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-known QI of colonoscopy. Substantial evidence has suggested that improving the ADR could reduce the incidence and mortality of postcolonoscopy CRC. Key Messages: Recent technological advancements have led to the development of image-enhanced endoscopy and the incorporation of artificial intelligence, and their ability to improve the ADR has been assessed. This review focused on screening colonoscopies and QIs and their ability to improve the ADR and incidence and mortality of CRC.

Screening colonoscopy (SC) is widely accepted and has been shown to decrease the rate of colorectal cancer death. Guidelines and acceptance of screening for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) are less established despite the fact that esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) remains the fastest increasing cancer in the USA. The aim of this study was to assess the timing and frequency of SC in patients ultimately found to have EA and to evaluate the presence of symptoms and risk factors that might have prompted an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and potentially earlier diagnosis of the EA. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who were referred to a single center with esophageal cancer between July 2016 and November 2022. Patients with any histology other than adenocarcinoma were excluded. There were 221 patients referred with EA. Of these, a SC had been done prior to the diagnosis of EA in 108 patients (49%): 96 men and 12 women. A total of 203 SC had been done (range 1–7 per patient), and 47% of patients had more than 1 SC. The median interval from the last SC to the diagnosis of EA was 2.9 years. At the time of SC, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms or chronic acid suppression medication use was reported by 81% of patients, and 80% had an American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) indication for a screening EGD. Only 19 patients (18%) that had a SC had an EGD at any time prior to the diagnosis of EA, and in these patients, 74% had erosive esophagitis or BE. The EA in most patients was stage III or IV and associated with lymph node metastases. Nearly one-half of patients ultimately diagnosed with EA had one or more SCs, and most of these patients had GERD symptoms, were using acid suppression medications or had an ASGE indication for a screening EGD. Despite this, only 18% had an EGD prior to the EA diagnosis. The addition of an EGD at the time of SC in these patients may have allowed the detection of BE or EA at an early, endoscopically curable stage and represents a missed opportunity to intervene in the natural history of this disease.

Background A family history of colorectal cancer among first-degree relatives is recognized as one of the most significant and prevalent risk factors for colorectal cancer in China. Colonoscopy remains the most crucial screening method, as early colonoscopy screening can effectively reduce the risk of advanced colorectal cancer. However, the factors influencing the decision-making behavior of first-degree relatives regarding colonoscopy screening have predominantly been examined through quantitative studies, while mixed-methods research remains scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer and to identify the factors influencing these behaviors. Methods An explanatory sequential design was adopted within a mixed-methods framework. For the quantitative phase, convenience sampling was used to select 272 first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients who were treated at a tertiary hospital’s gastrointestinal surgery department in Wuhan, China from March to December 2023, for a questionnaire survey. For the qualitative component, a maximum variation purposive sampling method, guided by the Protection Motivation Theory, was employed to select 16 participants from the initial survey group for semi-structured interviews. Results Our findings revealed that participants had a high health belief score. Key factors influencing their decision to undergo colonoscopy screening included marital status, average monthly household income, medical payment method, and perceived severity. The qualitative study identified six core themes: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, internal and external rewards, response efficacy, response costs, and self-efficacy. Conclusion Medical staff should focus on first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer who are unmarried or widowed, have lower family income, have lower reimbursement rate of medical insurance, and lack of disease severity perception. Through establishing social support system, issuing subsidies for colonoscopy screening, increasing reimbursement rate of medical insurance, emphasizing the severity of colorectal cancer, to enhance their health belief level and promote colonoscopy screening decision-making behavior. Trial registration Not applicable.

Background Colonoscopy as a common screening practice to prevent colorectal cancer lacks strong evidence. NordICC, the first randomized trial of colonoscopy screening, reported no clear clinical benefit for colonoscopy in the intention-to-screen population with suggested benefit in the risk of colorectal incidence and cancer-specific mortality in the per-protocol analyses. However, although the study was designed to perform survival analysis, no survival outcomes were reported since the underlying assumption for hazard ratio was not valid. We aimed to assess whether colonoscopy screening is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with usual care. Methods We reconstructed patient-level data from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the primary endpoints reported in NordICC for the intention-to-screen and adjusted per-protocol populations. The restricted-mean survival time difference (RMST-D) and restricted-mean time loss ratio (RMTL-R), which are robust alternatives to the hazard ratio without specific model assumptions, were calculated for colorectal cancer incidence and death. Results In this study, no significant difference in colorectal cancer incidence over 10 years was found in the intention-to-screen population (RMST-D: -0.68 days, 95% CI -3.9–2.6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88–1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95% CI -6.5–0.67; RMTL-R: 1.15, 95% CI 0.97–1.35). In the intention-to-screen population, inviting individuals to colonoscopy did not improve colorectal-cancer death (RMST-D: -0.29 days, 95% CI -1.6–1.0; RMTL-R: 1.07, 95% CI 0.78–1.48). Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonoscopy survived an average of 1.1 more days free of colorectal cancer, but this difference was not statistically significant (RMST-D: 95% CI -0.13–2.3; RMTL-R: 0.72, 95% CI 0.49–1.07). Conclusions In this reanalysis of the NordICC data, no evidence of improvement in survival outcomes for participants invited to undergo colonoscopy compared to usual care was identified, even when assuming that all invited participants did undergo colonoscopy. Thus, our results do not support the use of colonoscopy as a population-wide screening test as a mean to decrease colorectal cancer incidence or death. Registry Not applicable.

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing incidence of distal vs. proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) in persons aged 55–69 years. Using observational data from a German claims database (German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database), we emulated a target trial with two arms: Colonoscopy screening vs. no-screening at baseline. Adjusted cumulative incidence of total, distal, and proximal CRC over 11 years of follow-up was estimated in 55–69-year-olds at an average CRC risk and without colonoscopy, polypectomy, or fecal occult blood test before baseline. Overall, 307,158 persons were included (screening arm: 198,389 and control arm: 117,399). The adjusted 11-year risk of any CRC was 1.62% in the screening group and 2.38% in the no-screening group resulting in a relative risk of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.63–0.73). The relative risk was 0.67 for distal CRC (95% CI: 0.62–0.73) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63–0.79) for proximal CRC. The cumulative incidence curves of the groups crossed after 6.7 (distal CRC) and 5.0 years (proximal CRC). Our results suggest that colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal and proximal CRC. Unlike previous studies not using a target trial approach, we found no relevant difference in the effectiveness by location. [Display omitted]

There exists conflicting data in the literature with regard to adequate adenoma detection rate (ADR) as well as other quality metrics during colonoscopy based on the time of day that the procedure is performed. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of time of day on quality metrics in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Screening colonoscopies performed between January 2010 and September 2018 by twenty-eight colorectal surgeons were queried from a prospectively maintained database. Quality parameters examined included adenoma detection rate (ADR), gender-specific ADR, withdrawal time, total examination time, cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation quality, and intra-procedural complications. Colonoscopies were compared between morning (07:30–11:59 AM) and afternoon (12:00–17:00 PM) groups. There were 13,809 endoscopic screening examinations performed in asymptomatic patients older than 45 years. Patients had a mean age of 59.8 years, and 48.5% were female. A total of 8868 (64%) of the scopes were performed in the morning and 4941 (36%) were performed in the afternoon. Median endoscopist volume was 189 [54, 701] and included only surgeons who performed both afternoon and morning colonoscopies. There was no difference in both ADR and bowel preparation quality between the two groups. Both groups exceeded all national quality benchmarks, with the morning group having significantly shorter examination times. In our practice, colonoscopies meet and exceed all national quality benchmarks, independent of the time of day they are performed.