We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) risk and an adenoma detection rate (ADR) which was calculated using examinations with all indications, as compared with ADR restricted to only screening examinations.

Our cohort study included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis. Our outcome, PCCRC, was any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific all-examination ADR (ADR-A), calculated for all indications, divided into quintiles. We also compared the ADR-A with a screening ADR (ADR-S). Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on ADR, controlling for age, sex, and other covariates.

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for ADR-A's ≥ 23%, as compared with ADR-A's <23% (reference) (23% to <29%: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.87; 29% to <34%: HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.94; 34% to <44%: HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.29-0.65; and ≥44%: HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.16-0.63). The highest quartile of ADR-A (42%+) (HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) had a similar protection from PCCRC as the highest quartile of ADR-S (35%+) (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.70). We observed 95% CIs for ADR's were 28% narrower (median = 0.72; interquartile range (IQR): 0.10) for endoscopists when using ADR-A vs ADR-S.

Our data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher ADR's calculated with all examinations help to validate ADR-A as a quality measure. ADR-A may also increase precision of the calculated ADR. Endoscopists should strive for a higher ADR-A with 44% as an aspirational target.

The adenoma detection rate is higher among endoscopists who spend more time observing screen edges during colonoscopies. Nonetheless, eye movement parameters related to lesion detection remain unknown. This study aimed to determine the specific eye movement parameters related to colorectal adenoma detection, including the gaze rate in a particular area and eye movement speed.

This study was a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of modifying eye movements of endoscopists on colorectal adenoma detection. Gaze rate at a specific area and eye movement speed were calculated based on endoscopist gaze coordinates in each examination. Time required for observation and treatment of polyps was excluded. The lower peripheral area was defined as the bottom row when the screen was divided into 6×6 sections. These parameters were compared between patients with and without adenomas.

Five physicians performed 158 colonoscopies. The adenoma detection group exhibited a lower peripheral gaze rate (13.7% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.004) and smaller average eye movement distance (29.9 pixels/30 ms vs. 33.3 pixels/30 ms, P = 0.022). Logistic regression analysis showed that a lower peripheral gaze rate > 13.0% and an average eye movement distance <30 pixels/30 ms were increased independent predictors of adenoma detection ( P = 0.024, odds ratio [OR] 2.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-3.28; P = 0.045, OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.03-20.2), whereas age, sex, and withdrawal time were not.

Lower peripheral gaze rate and slow eye movement are associated with colorectal adenoma detection.

Visual gaze pattern (VGP) analysis quantifies endoscopists' specific eye movements. VGP during colonoscopy may be associated with polyp detection. However, the optimal VGP to maximize detection performance remains unclear. This study evaluated the optimal endoscopic VGP that enabled the highest colorectal adenoma detection rate.

This randomized controlled trial was conducted between July and December 2023. We developed an eye-tracking and feedback (ETF) system that instructed endoscopists to correct their gaze toward the periphery of an endoscope screen with an audible alert. Patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomly assigned to 4 groups: 3 intervention groups, in which the endoscopist's gaze was instructed to a different level of the peripheral screen area using the ETF system (the periphery of 4 × 4, 5 × 5, and 6 × 6 divisions of the screen), and a control group in which the endoscopist did not receive instructions. The primary outcome was the number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC).

In total, 189 patients were enrolled. The APC and adenoma detection rate were significantly higher in the 6 × 6 group than in the control group (1.82 ± 2.41 vs 0.59 ± 1.17, P = .002; 68.9% vs 30.8%, P = .002). The APC and the number of screen divisions were positively correlated (R = 0.985, P = .0152). The rate at which the endoscopist gazed at the periphery of the screen was positively correlated with the number of divisions (R = 0.964, P = .0363).

Colorectal adenoma detection was improved by correcting the endoscopist's gaze to the periphery of the screen, especially by dividing the screen into 6 × 6 segments.

Colonoscopy-based surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial burden for patients and health care. Stool tests may help to reduce surveillance colonoscopies by limiting colonoscopies to individuals at increased risk of advanced neoplasia.

This cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years with surveillance indication. Before bowel preparation, participants collected samples for a multitarget stool DNA test and 2 fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications. For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and is associated with a relatively low CRC risk, long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer (ASCCA) model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test's positivity threshold to obtain strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance.

There were 3453 individuals with results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; 2226 had previous polypectomy, 1003 had previous CRC, and 224 had a familial risk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy). Stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance reduced the number of colonoscopies by 15%-41% and required 5.6-9.5 stool tests over a person's lifetime. Multitarget stool DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs.

This study found that stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies can be safe and cost-effective, with potential to reduce the number of colonoscopies by up to 41%.

gov, Number: NCT02715141.

Colonoscopic polypectomy significantly reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer, but it carries potential risks, with colonic perforation being the most common and associated with significant morbidity.

This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and risk factors of microperforation during colonoscopic polypectomy.

A retrospective cohort study.

We retrospectively reviewed the patients' records who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy and subsequent plain radiographic examination to monitor perforation. Patients with pneumoperitoneum detected on plain radiography were enrolled. Patients who underwent adverse event-free colonoscopic polypectomies within 1 week of each case and were matched 2:1 by age and sex to the cases were selected as controls.

Microperforations occurred in 12 patients (8 males; age: median 64.5 years). Polyps with microperforations were more frequent in the right colon (83.3% vs 33.3%). Endoscopic mucosal resection with precutting (EMR-P; 16.7% vs 0.0%) or hot-snare polypectomy (8.3% vs 0.0%) was more frequently performed in the microperforation group. Muscle fibers at the polypectomy site were more frequently visible in the microperforation group (58.3% vs 8.3%). By multivariate analysis, right colon location and visible muscle fibers were independent risk factors for microperforation. All patients with microperforation received intravenous antibiotics and were advised to fast. Patients responded well to these conservative treatments and were discharged after a median of 3 (2-6.75) days of hospital stay.

Our data suggest that conservative treatment is feasible and could be the primary management option for selected patients with microperforations postcolonoscopic polypectomy. Right-sided colonic polyps and visible muscle fibers predispose to microperforations.

Colonoscopy remains the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. A substantial portion of the screening population value the high sensitivity of colonoscopy for precancerous colorectal lesions of all sizes, which allows it to be performed at 10 year intervals in average-risk persons with negative examinations. Emerging evidence supports the eventual endorsement of 15 year intervals for patients with normal examinations. Considerable evidence supports an impact of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including a randomized controlled trial of colonoscopy vs. no screening, numerous case-control and cohort studies, an impact of fecal blood testing on cancer incidence, and the impact of one randomized controlled trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy on proximal colon cancer incidence. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal precancerous lesions, and continues to evolve with regard to sensitivity for precancerous lesions and the effectiveness and safety of precancerous lesion resection. Gains in detection of precancerous lesions have followed from a robust movement to improve colonoscopy quality, and development of non-device techniques such as patient rotation during withdrawal, water exchange colonoscopy, and double examination of one or more colonic segments. Further, development of devices to improve mucosal exposure during withdrawal (e.g. Endocuff Vision, distal cap attachment, and Computer-Aided Quality), and devices that highlight flat lesions (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy, and Computer-Aided Detection) have created opportunities to achieve very high levels of detection and thereby increase the protective benefits of colonoscopy. Further, colonoscopy resection safety has improved via the widespread use of cold resection for lesions < 10 mm in size, as well as sessile serrated lesions of all sizes. Colonoscopy can be offered to patients as one of multiple options for screening, or as the test of choice for patients with the highest pre-screening probability of cancer and precancerous lesions, or as the first test offered followed by offers of other screening tests if colonoscopy is declined (sequential offers of screening). Sequential offers of screening result in overall adherence to screening similar to offering multiple options, but with a higher fraction of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Given the long-lasting protective effects of colonoscopy and its improving effectiveness and safety, colonoscopy remains a useful option for primary average-risk colorectal cancer screening.

Background and study aims We compared the ability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) to assess endoscopist detection, using statistical principles and simulations. Patients and methods We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients to compare the ability of ADR versus APC for capturing true endoscopist ability (TEA). We compared these rates with and without adjustment for patient and exam factors using multivariable models, and adjustment for imprecision due to low volume using empirical Bayes (shrinkage). Power calculations were used to compare the ability of ADR and APC to distinguish higher from lower rates over two time periods for an endoscopist. Results APC and ADR had similar discriminatory ability for assessing TEA. This increased with higher volumes and after adjusting for risk factors and low volume using shrinkage. Higher APC and ADRs had higher power for comparing endoscopist detection over two time periods, but APC was superior to ADR. For example, there was 29% power to distinguish APCs (n = 200 colonoscopies) 0.10 from 0.15, similar to the power (28%) to distinguish corresponding ADRs: 10% and 14%. However, at same volume (n = 200), the power to distinguish higher APC rates (0.50 vs.0.75) was greater (89%) than the power (78%) for corresponding ADRs (39% vs.53%). Conclusions Adjusting for patient and exam factors and/or using shrinkage techniques for lower-volume endoscopists can increase the correlation between TEA for both ADR and APC. For higher detection rates, APC offers more power than ADR in distinguishing differences in detection ability.

Recent evidence indicates that the gut microbiota (GM) has a significant impact on the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) progression. Our aim was to investigate the GM profiles, the Microbial Dysbiosis Index (MDI) and the intestinal microbiota-associated markers in relation to IBD clinical characteristics and disease state. We performed 16S rRNA metataxonomy on both stools and ileal biopsies, metabolic dysbiosis tests on urine and intestinal permeability and mucosal immunity activation tests on the stools of 35 IBD paediatric patients. On the GM profile, we assigned the MDI to each patient. In the statistical analyses, the MDI was correlated with clinical parameters and intestinal microbial-associated markers. In IBD patients with high MDI, Gemellaceae and Enterobacteriaceae were increased in stools, and Fusobacterium, Haemophilus and Veillonella were increased in ileal biopsies. Ruminococcaceae and WAL_1855D were enriched in active disease condition; the last one was also positively correlated to MDI. Furthermore, the MDI results correlated with PUCAI and Matts scores in ulcerative colitis patients (UC). Finally, in our patients, we detected metabolic dysbiosis, intestinal permeability and mucosal immunity activation. In conclusion, the MDI showed a strong association with both severity and activity of IBD and a positive correlation with clinical scores, especially in UC. Thus, this evidence could be a useful tool for the diagnosis and prognosis of IBD.

Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test to decrease mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). G-EYE is an inflated balloon on the bending section of the scope with the ability to flatten the folds to improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of G-EYE in improving ADR and other quality indicators of colonoscopy.

A literature search was performed through March 21, 2023, on databases including Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, and Global Index Medicus. Core concepts of G-EYE, colonoscopy, ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), and withdrawal time were searched. Statistical analysis was performed with OpenMeta[Analyst]. The odds ratio (OR) for the proportional variable and mean difference for the continuous variable along with 95% CI was used with a P-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects model for pooling data.

The search strategy yielded a total of 143 articles. Three studies with 3868 total colonoscopies were finalized. The pooled ADR, PDR, and SPDR showed statistical improvement with G-EYE (OR: 1.744, 95% CI: 1.534-1.984, P<0.001; OR: 1.766, 95% CI: 1.547-2.015, P<0.001; and OR: 1.603, 95% CI: 1.176-2.185, P=0.003). The withdrawal time was also noted to be higher in the G-EYE group (mean difference: 0.114, CI: 0.041-0.186, P=0.002).

This meta-analysis suggests that G-EYE can improve ADR, PDR, and SPDR. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of G-EYE on interval CRC and mortality rate.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is now recommended at the age of 45 years in the United States. However, information regarding the adenomas detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) in 45- to 49-year-old individuals is limited. In addition, the impact of lowering the screening age to 45 years on the ADR and the detection rate of SSLs is not well elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to report the overall ADR and SSL detection rate in 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing colonoscopy.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane database from inception through October 2022 to identify studies reporting on ADR and SSL detection rates in 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing colonoscopies for all indications. This approach acknowledges the possibility of including individuals undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies or those with increased risk factors for CRC. We also conducted a separate analysis examining ADR in average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. The pooled rates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using the fixed-effects model. I2 was used to adjudicate heterogeneity.

Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective except one; 3 had data from national/local registries. There were 41,709 adenomas detected across 150,436 colonoscopies. The pooled overall ADR was 23.1% (95% CI 19.7%-27.0%, I2 = 98.6%). The pooled ADR in individuals with average risk of CRC from 7 studies was 28.2% (95% CI 24.6%-32.0%, I2 = 96.5%). The pooled overall SSL detection rate from 6 studies was 6.3% (95% CI 3.8%-10.5%, I2 = 97%). The included studies were heterogeneous because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and patient population.

In 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing a colonoscopy for any indication, the ADR and SSL detection rates were 23.1% and 6.3%, respectively. We conclude that these outcomes in 45- to 49-year-olds are comparable with individuals aged 50-54 years.

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is being implemented in countries with a high incidence of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. High-quality EGD screening ensures the yield of early diagnosis and prevents suffering from advanced UGI cancer and minimal operational-related discomfort. However, performance varied dramatically among endoscopists, and quality control for EGD screening remains suboptimal. Guidelines have recommended potential measures for endoscopy quality improvement and research has been conducted for evidence. Moreover, artificial intelligence offers a promising solution for computer-aided diagnosis and quality control during EGD examinations. In this review, we summarized the key points for quality assurance in EGD screening based on current guidelines and evidence. We also outline the latest evidence, limitations, and future prospects of the emerging role of artificial intelligence in EGD quality control, aiming to provide a foundation for improving the quality of EGD screening.

With an increasing number of patients with gastrointestinal cancer, effective and accurate early diagnostic clinical tools are required provide better health care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Recent studies have shown that artificial intelligence (AI) plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastrointestinal tumors, which not only improves the efficiency of early tumor screening, but also significantly improves the survival rate of patients after treatment. With the aid of efficient learning and judgment abilities of AI, endoscopists can improve the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment through endoscopy and avoid incorrect descriptions or judgments of gastrointestinal lesions. The present article provides an overview of the application status of various artificial intelligence in gastric and colorectal cancers in recent years, and the direction of future research and clinical practice is clarified from a clinical perspective to provide a comprehensive theoretical basis for AI as a promising diagnostic and therapeutic tool for gastrointestinal cancer.

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps is a safe technique; however, there is little evidence on whether dietary restriction after CSP is essential. This study aimed to determine whether dietary restriction after CSP is necessary to prevent delayed bleeding.

This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial conducted between November 2021 and March 2022. Patients with non-pedunculated small colorectal polyps (<10 mm) and who did not take anticoagulants were randomly allocated to two groups: (i) the normal diet (ND) group, and (ii) the low-residue diet (LRD) group. The ND group was instructed to eat anything after CSP, whereas the LRD group was advised to take LRD for 3 days after CSP. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of delayed major bleeding that needed endoscopic hemostasis.

A total of 193 patients (average 57.5 years old, 51.9% male) were enrolled in the study. Subsequently, 97 and 96 patients were allocated to the ND and LRD group, respectively. The occurrence of delayed major bleeding was 1.0% in the ND group and 2.1% in the LRD group (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to 2.4%; difference: -1.1%), which showed the non-inferiority of the ND group. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to the occurrence of minor delayed bleeding (3.1% and 4.2%, respectively; difference: -1.1% [95% CI: -6.4% to 4.2%]).

Dietary restriction after CSP for low-bleeding-risk colorectal polyps is not necessary for the prevention of delayed bleeding (Registration number: UMIN000045669).

Colonoscopy quality affects colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer strongly recommends photodocumentation (PD) of lesions ≥10 mm in size (ie, large polyps [LPs]) pre-resection and suggests PD postresection to enhance the quality of colonoscopy. No studies have assessed the frequency of LP PD. We evaluated the frequency of and factors associated with PD of LPs.

Reports from endoscopists performing ≥50 colonoscopies with LP resection between 2016 and 2021 were reviewed. The frequency of LP PD pre-resection and post-resection and factors associated with PD were collected. A composite score of 2 quality metrics (PD of completeness of examination and bowel preparation quality) was created. Endoscopists were divided into 2 tiers based on the frequency of the score on all included examinations: Tier 1, ≥95% of examinations; and Tier 2, <95% of examinations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess factors associated with PD.

A total of 1322 colonoscopies, 1693 LPs, and 25 endoscopists were included in this study. PD of LPs occurred in 1392 (82%) pre-resection and in 878 (52%) post-resection. Factors associated with pre-resection PD include endoscopist subspecialty (colorectal surgery vs gastroenterology: odds ratio [OR], .12; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04-.42); >1 LP on examination (2 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .27-.61]; and ≥3 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .24-.70]), and longer withdrawal time (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04).

We provide the first data on PD of LP pre-resection and post-resection, which can inform future benchmarking in this area. The implications of PD on metachronous advanced neoplasia need to be studied.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a quality indicator for colonoscopy, has gained prominence as it is inversely related to CRC incidence and mortality. As such, recent efforts have focused on developing novel colonoscopy devices and technologies to improve ADR.

The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of advancements in the fields of colonoscopy mechanical attachments, artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy, and colonoscopy optical enhancements with respect to ADR. We accomplished this by performing a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception to September 2023. This review is intended to be an introduction to colonoscopy devices and technologies.

Numerous mechanical attachments and optical enhancements have been developed that have the potential to improve ADR and AI has gone from being an inaccessible concept to a feasible means for improving ADR. While these advances are exciting and portend a change in what will be considered standard colonoscopy, they continue to require refinement. Future studies should focus on combining modalities to further improve ADR and exploring the use of these technologies in other facets of colonoscopy.

High-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the development of quality assurance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The most widely used marker of mucosal visualisation is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, histological confirmation is required to calculate this. We explored the relationship between core colonoscopy KPIs.

Data were collected from colonoscopists in eight hospitals in North East England over a 6-month period, as part of a quality improvement study. Procedural information was collected including number of colonoscopies, caecal intubation rate (CIR), ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR). Associations between KPIs and colonoscopy performance were analysed.

9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 16.6% (range 0-36.3, SD 7.4) and 27.2% (range 0-57.5, SD 9.3), respectively. Mean number of colonoscopies conducted in 6 months was 78.5 (range 4-334, SD 61). Mean CIR was 91.2% (range 55.5-100, SD 6.6). Total number of colonoscopies and ADR>15% were significantly associated (p=0.04). Undertaking fewer colonoscopies and using hyoscine butylbromide less frequently was significantly associated with ADR<15%. CIR, endoscopist grade, % male patients, mean patient age and CIR were not significantly related to ADR<15%. In adjusted analyses, factors which affected ADR were PDR and mean patient age.

Colonoscopists who perform fewer than the nationally stipulated minimum of 100 procedures per year had significantly lower ADRs. This study demonstrates that PDR can be used as a marker of ADR; providing age is also considered.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is linked to distinct gut microbiome patterns. The efficacy of gut bacteria as diagnostic biomarkers for CRC has been confirmed. Despite the potential to influence microbiome physiology and evolution, the set of plasmids in the gut microbiome remains understudied.

We investigated the essential features of gut plasmid using metagenomic data of 1,242 samples from eight distinct geographic cohorts. We identified 198 plasmid-related sequences that differed in abundance between CRC patients and controls and screened 21 markers for the CRC diagnosis model. We utilize these plasmid markers combined with bacteria to construct a random forest classifier model to diagnose CRC.

The plasmid markers were able to distinguish between the CRC patients and controls [mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC = 0.70)] and maintained accuracy in two independent cohorts. In comparison to the bacteria-only model, the performance of the composite panel created by combining plasmid and bacteria features was significantly improved in all training cohorts (mean AUC_composite = 0.804 and mean AUC_bacteria = 0.787) and maintained high accuracy in all independent cohorts (mean AUC_composite = 0.839 and mean AUC_bacteria = 0.821). In comparison to controls, we found that the bacteria-plasmid correlation strength was weaker in CRC patients. Additionally, the KEGG orthology (KO) genes in plasmids that are independent of bacteria or plasmids significantly correlated with CRC.

We identified plasmid features associated with CRC and showed how plasmid and bacterial markers could be combined to further enhance CRC diagnosis accuracy.

Colorectal cancer is responsible for 9.4% of cancer deaths, and low polyp detection rate and cecal intubation rate increase the risks of interval colorectal cancer. Despite several population studies that address colonoscopy quality measures, there is still a shortage of these studies in Latin America. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators in colonoscopy, enabling future strategies to improve colorectal cancer prevention.

An observational retrospective study, in which all colonoscopies performed in 11 hospitals were evaluated through a review of medical records. Information such as procedure indication, colorectal polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, quality of colonic preparation, and immediate adverse events were collected and analyzed.

In 17,448 colonoscopies performed by 86 endoscopists, 57.9% were in patients aged 50 to 74 years old. Colon preparation was adequate in 94.4% procedures, with rates of cecal intubation and polyp detection of 94 and 36.6%, respectively. Acute adverse events occurred in 0.2%. In 53.9%, high-definition imaging equipment was used. The procedure location, colon preparation and high-definition equipment influenced polyp detection rates (p < 0.001).

The extraction and analysis of electronic medical records showed that there are opportunities for improvement in colonoscopy quality indicators in the participating hospitals.

Bowel prep for inpatient cases are for the most part inadequate. Gastroenterology nurses are ideally situated to recognize the importance of bowel preparation for patients who require a colonoscopy. Unique challenges exist for inpatients who require a colonoscopy preparation as part of their hospitalization. We identified that inpatients scheduled for colonoscopies during their hospitalization were not appropriately prepped, leading to unsuccessful and repeat procedures. We conducted this research study to determine whether an educational intervention would optimize inpatients, bowel preparation and improve the quality of bowel preparation, patient satisfaction, and understanding of bowel preparation. Three months prior to an educational intervention, inpatients who required a colonoscopy completed surveys about their colonoscopy preparation. Then, educational in-services on how to administer bowel preparation were presented to multidisciplinary staff, which included 70% of all registered nurses (RNs). Following the education phase, 40 inpatients were surveyed. We found that patients' perception of education differed if they verbalized a past experience and the highest prep scores were obtained in patients educated by a physician and RN. Our results indicated that an educational intervention targeting inpatient staff improved patient satisfaction, decreased aborted colonoscopies by 22%, and increased Boston Bowel Preparation Scale utilization in 100% of cases. Educating inpatient providers on the necessary preparation protocol improved inpatient care outcomes by decreasing the amount of incomplete and repeat inpatient colonoscopies and therefore may reduce healthcare costs.

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers globally. Recent reductions in mortality rates have been primarily attributed to screening programs. The State of Qatar established a national bowel cancer screening program in 2016.

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was used for average-risk individuals aged 50 to 74 years. Fecal immunochemical testing -positive participants were referred for total colonoscopy to detect polyps and cancers.

Among 32,751 FIT invitees, 11,130 took the test, and 758 (6%) of those were FIT positive. Of these, 375 (56.13%) participants underwent a colonoscopy, and polyps were detected in 198 (52.8%) and cancers in 19 (5.1%) participants. The adenoma detection rate exceeded 40%.

The high yield of polyps and cancers in the screening program justifies an active, resource-intensive, and organized bowel cancer screening effort. The high adenoma detection rate in a FIT-based program warrants recalibration of target adenoma detection rates in screening programs.

Numerous endoscopic assist devices exist, yet data surrounding their comparative efficacy is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of endoscopic assist devices on colonic adenoma detection.

A systematic search was performed using multiple electronic databases through July 2020, to identify all randomized controlled trials and dual-arm observational studies compared with either other endoscopic assist devices and/or standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR), right-sided adenoma detection rate (RADR), and proximal adenoma detection rate (PADR).

Fifty-seven studies (31,051 patients) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Network meta-analysis identified an enhanced ADR among (clear) cap [odds ratio (OR): 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.99], endocuff, (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.15-7.78), and endoring (OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.47-9.20)-with no significant difference amongst any particular device. Similar findings for PDR were also seen. Enhanced SADR was identified for endocuff (OR: 9.43) and endoring (OR: 4.06) compared with standard colonoscopy. Enhanced RADR (OR: 5.36) and PADR (OR: 3.78) were only identified for endocuff. Endocuff comparatively demonstrated the greatest ADR, PDR, and SADR, but this was not significant when compared with the other assist devices. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified enhanced PDR and ADR for both cap and endocuff.

Endoscopic assist devices displayed increased ADR and PDR as compared with standard colonoscopy and thus should be widely adopted. A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher efficacy for the endocuff device.

Despite its wide availability, we do not have sufficient data aboutthe quality of colonoscopy in Egypt. In this study, we proposed 13 indicators to assess the quality of colonoscopy procedures in the included study centers aiming to attain a representative image of the quality of CS in Egypt.

A multicenter prospective study was conducted between July and December 2020, which included all patients who underwent colonoscopy in the participating centers. The following were the proposed quality indicators: indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure clinical assessment, obtaining written informed consent, adequate colon preparation, sedation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complication rate, photographic documentation, automated sterilization, regular infection control check, and well-equipped postprocedure recovery room.

A total of 1,006 colonoscopy procedures were performed during the study duration in the included centers. Our analysis showed the following four indicators that were fulfilled in all centers: appropriate indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure assessment, written informed consent, and automated sterilization. However, photographic documentation and postprocedure follow-up room were fulfilled only in 57 %. Furthermore, 71 % of the centers performed regular infection control checks. Adequate colon preparation was achieved in 61 % of the procedures, 81 % of the procedures were performed under sedation, 95.4 % CIR, 11-min mean withdrawal time, 15 % ADR, and 0.1 % overall complication rate. Statistically significant factors affecting CIR were age > 40 years, high-definition endoscope, previous colon intervention, and rectal bleeding, whereas those affecting ADR were age > 40 years, the use of image enhancement, previous colon intervention, rectal bleeding, the use of water pump, and a withdrawal time of > 9 min.

Our study revealed the bright aspects of colonoscopy practice in Egypt, including high CIRs and low complication rates; conversely, ADR, bowel cleansing quality, and infection control measures should be improved.

Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.

We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).

Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) does not reflect the complete detection of every adenoma during colonoscopy; thus, many surrogate indicators have been suggested. This study investigated whether the ADR and surrogate quality indicators reflect the adenoma miss rate (AMR) when performing qualified colonoscopy.

We performed a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of asymptomatic examinees aged 50 to 75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by eight endoscopists. The ADR and surrogate quality indicators, including polyp detection rate, total number of adenomas per colonoscopy, additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and total number of adenomas per positive participant, were calculated for the prediction of AMR.

A total of 371 back-to-back colonoscopies were performed. There was a significant difference in ADRs (range, 44% to 75.4%; p=0.024), polyp detection rates (range, 56% to 86.9%; p=0.008) and adenomas per positive participants (range, 1.19 to 2.30; p=0.038), and a tendency of a difference in adenomas per colonoscopy (range, 0.62 to 1.31; p=0.051) and ADR-Plus (range, 0.13 to 0.70; p=0.054) among the endoscopists. The overall AMR was 20.1%, and AMRs were not different (range, 13.9 to 28.6; p>0.05) among the endoscopists. No quality indicators were significantly correlated with AMR. The number of adenomas found during the first colonoscopy was an independent factor for increased AMR (odds ratio, 1.79; p<0.001).

The colonoscopy quality indicators were significantly different among high-ADR endoscopists, and none of the quality indicators reflected the AMR of good quality colonoscopy performances. The only factor influencing AMR was the number of adenomas detected during colonoscopy.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is effective in reducing gastric cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancer in areas with a high prevalence of gastric cancer. Although the risk of post-endoscopy advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is low, interval AGC remains a concern. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of interval AGC after negative EGD.

We included 1257 patients with gastric cancer within 6 to 36 months of a "cancer-negative" index EGD between 2005 and 2021 at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. Observation time on the index EGD was used as a quality indicator. We compared the clinical and endoscopic characteristics and quality indicators between interval AGC and screen-detected early gastric cancer (EGC).

Within 6 to 36 months of negative EGD, 102 AGCs (8.1%) and 1155 EGCs (91.9%) were identified. The percentage of patients with shorter observation time (<3 minutes) in the index EGD was higher in the interval AGC group than in the detected EGC group (P = .002). A multivariable analysis comparing screen-detected EGD and interval AGC was adjusted for age, sex, family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori status, endoscopic findings, and endoscopy-related factors including gastric observation time and interval time. A shorter observation time (<3 minutes) (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.30), and interval time >2 years (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.24) were associated with an increased risk of interval AGC.

A shorter observation time during index EGD is an important predictor of interval AGC. Further, withdrawal time longer than 3 minutes may be a quality indicator for screening EGD.

Although oral sulfate solution (OSS) has been revealed to be not only safe and efficacious but also noninferior to polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC), it is unclear whether OSS can ultimately increase the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the effect of OSS on PDR and ADR during colonoscopy.

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative effect of OSS versus PEG + ASC on the PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation time (CIT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation score were also evaluated. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3.0 was used to perform statistical analysis.

Eight RCTs involving 2059 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that OSS significantly increased the PDR (47.34% vs. 40.14%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, P = 0.01) and ADR (44.60% vs. 38.14%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33, P = 0.01) during colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effects of OSS on PDR and ADR were consistent among patients with mean age >55 years and with body mass index <25 kg/m² receiving outpatient colonoscopy, morning colonoscopy, and the 2-L bowel preparation protocol. Meanwhile, patients receiving OSS had a beneficial bowel preparation score.

Compared with polyethylene glycol-based regimens, the OSS bowel preparation regimen significantly increased the PDR and ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, and colonoscopy quality improvement programs aim to improve efficacy. This study evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of using a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in colonoscopy procedures.

This randomized study prospectively evaluated the use of a CADe device at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22). Participants aged ≥40 scheduled for screening or surveillance (≥3 years) colonoscopy were included; exclusion criteria included incomplete procedure, diagnostic indication, inflammatory bowel disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis. Patients were randomized by endoscopist to the standard or CADe colonoscopy arm using computer-generated, random-block method. The 2 primary endpoints were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the total number of adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies; and true histology rate (THR), the proportion of resections with clinically significant histology divided by the total number of polyp resections. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach.

Between January and September 2021, 1440 participants were enrolled to be randomized. After exclusion of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria, 677 in the standard arm and 682 in the CADe arm were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. APC increased significantly with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 0.83 vs 1.05, P = .002; total number of adenomas, 562 vs 719). There was no decrease in THR with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 71.7% vs 67.4%, P for noninferiority < .001; total number of non-neoplastic lesions, 284 vs 375). Adenoma detection rate was 43.9% and 47.8% in the standard and CADe arms, respectively (P = .065).

For experienced endoscopists performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies in the United States, the CADe device statistically improved overall adenoma detection (APC) without a concomitant increase in resection of non-neoplastic lesions (THR).

gov registration: NCT04754347.

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of cancer and are now omnipresent. However, immune-related adverse events can present with varying phenotypes and timing, which can pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for the treating oncologist as well as subspecialty consultants. Biopsies of affected organs may provide insight into biologic mechanisms as well as potentially guide management in certain circumstances.

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

Patient experience is defined as a major quality indicator that should be routinely measured during and after a colonoscopy, according to current ESGE guidelines. There is no standard approach measuring patient experience after the procedure and the comparative performance of the different colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to develop a conceptual model describing how patients experience a colonoscopy, and to compare the model against colonoscopy-specific PREMs. A systematic search for qualitative research published up to December 2021 in PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was conducted. After screening and quality assessment, data from 13 studies were synthesised using meta-ethnography. Similarities and differences between the model and colonoscopy-specific PREMs were identified. A model consisting of five concepts describes how patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. These concepts were compared with existing PREMs and the result shows that there is agreement between the model and existing PREMs for colonoscopy in some parts, while partial agreement or no agreement is present in others. These findings suggest that new PREMs for colonoscopy should be developed, since none of the existing colonoscopy-specific PREMs fully cover patients' experiences.