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.

Practicing endoscopists frequently perform and teach screening colonoscopies and polypectomies, but there is no standardized method to train and assess physicians who perform polypectomy procedures. The authors created a polypectomy simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum and hypothesized that completion of the curriculum would lead to immediate improvement in polypectomy skills and skill retention at 6 and 12 months after training.

The authors performed a pretest-posttest cohort study with endoscopists who completed SBML and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months from May 2021 to August 2022. Participants underwent SBML training, including a pretest, a video lecture, deliberate practice, and a posttest. All learners were required to meet or exceed a minimum passing standard on a 17-item skills checklist before completing training and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months. The authors compared simulated polypectomy skills performance on the checklist from pretest to posttest and posttest to 6- or 12-month follow-up test.

Twenty-four of 30 eligible participants (80.0%) completed the SBML intervention, and 20 of 24 (83.3%) completed follow-up testing. The minimum passing standard was set at 93% of checklist items correct. The pretest passing rate was 4 of 24 participants (16.7%) compared with 24 of 24 participants (100%) at posttest ( P < .001). There were no significant differences in passing rates from posttest to combined 6- and 12-month posttest in which 18 of 20 participants (90.0%) passed.

Before training and despite years of clinical experience, practicing endoscopists demonstrated poor performance of polypectomy skills. SBML was an effective method for practicing endoscopists to acquire and maintain polypectomy skills during a 6- to 12-month period.

International guidelines recommend cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps  < 10 mm in size. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed conflicting results for the use of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) vs. CSP for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤ 5 mm), especially for polyps  ≤ 3 mm. Herein we compared CFP with CSP for patients with DCPs in this meta-analysis of RCTs.

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to November 24, 2022, (Registration number INPLASY2022110135). The primary endpoint was DCP complete resection rate. The secondary endpoints were mean polypectomy time, polyp retrieval rate and complications.

Seven RCTs involving 1023 DCPs were included. The complete resection rate (91.6% vs. 94.7%) for CFP was not significantly lower for polyps ≤ 5 mm (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07). Sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (88.7% vs. 92.4%) for CFP was not significantly lower for DCPs > 3 mm (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.12). Another sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (97.0% vs. 96.3%) was similar for polyps ≤ 3 mm for CFP vs. CSP (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.03). The mean polypectomy time was not different between CFP and CSP (95% CI: -11.86-10.18). The polyp retrieval rate (100% vs. 96.9%) was not significantly higher for CFP (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). There were no reported complications in the included studies. The overall study quality was moderate except for the removal of polyps ≤ 5 mm (low-quality evidence).

CFP was comparable to CSP for the resection of polyps ≤ 3 mm; however, caution should be taken for DCPs > 3 mm because of the low complete resection rate (< 90%).

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is strongly recommended as the optimal technique for the complete removal of small polyps. Though significant variability in polypectomy technique and quality has been established, the learning curve and impact of targeted training on CSP are unknown. Video feedback has shown promise as an effective pedagogy to improve performance among surgical trainees. We aimed to compare CSP performance between trainees who received video-based feedback and those who received conventional apprentice-based concurrent feedback. We hypothesized that video-based feedback would accelerate competence.

We conducted a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial on competence for CSP of polyps <1 cm, comparing video-based feedback with conventional feedback. We randomly assigned deidentified consecutively recorded CSP videos to blinded raters to assess using the CSP Assessment Tool. We shared cumulative sum learning curves every 25 CSP with each trainee. The video feedback trainees also received biweekly individualized terminal feedback. Control trainees received conventional feedback during colonoscopy. The primary outcome was CSP competence. We also assessed competence across domains and change over polypectomy volume.

We enrolled and randomized 22 trainees, 12 to video-based feedback and 10 to conventional feedback, and evaluated 2,339 CSP. The learning curve was long; 2 trainees (16.7%) in the video feedback achieved competence, after a mean of 135 polyps, and no one in the control ( P = 0.481) achieved competence. Overall and in all steps of CSP, a higher percentage of the video feedback group met competence, increasing 3% every 20 CSP ( P = 0.0004).

Video feedback aided trainees to competence in CSP. However, the learning curve was long. Our findings strongly suggest that current training methods are not sufficient to support trainees to competency by the completion of their fellowship programs. The impact of new training methods, such as simulation-based mastery learning, should be assessed to determine whether such methods can result in achievement of competence at a faster rate; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03115008.

Implementing population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer has led to an increase in the detection of large but benign histological lesions. Currently, endoscopic mucosal resection can be considered the standard technique for the removal of benign lesions of the colon due to its excellent safety profile and good clinical results. However, several studies from different geographic areas agree that many benign colon lesions are still referred for surgery. Moreover, the referral rate to surgery is not decreasing over the years, despite the theoretical improvement of endoscopic resection techniques. This article will review the leading causes for benign colorectal lesions to be referred for surgery and the influence of the endoscopist experience on the referral rate. It will also describe how to categorize a polyp as complex for resection and consider an endoscopist as an expert in endoscopic resection. And finally, we will propose a framework for the accurate and evidence-based treatment of complex benign colorectal lesions.

There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.

A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.

Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.

Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

The use of forceps for removal of nondiminutive polyps is associated with incomplete resection compared with snare polypectomy. However, few studies have characterized the frequency of forceps polypectomy for nondiminutive polyps or identified strategies to improve this practice. To address this gap, we estimated the prevalence and predictors of forceps polypectomy in clinical practice and examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy.

We retrospectively reviewed all colonoscopies with polypectomies performed at 2 U.S. health systems between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression model to examine the effect of a multicomponent intervention, including provider education and a financial incentive, to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy, defined as use of forceps polypectomy for polyps ≥5 mm.

A total of 9968 colonoscopies with 25,534 polypectomies were performed by 42 gastroenterologists during the study period. Overall, 8.5% (n = 2176) of polyps were removed with inappropriate forceps polypectomy. Inappropriate forceps polypectomy significantly decreased after the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.39), from 11.4% (n = 1539) to 5.3% (n = 637). Predictors of inappropriate forceps polypectomy included inadequate bowel prep (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.47), polyps in the right colon (vs left: OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.51), and number of polyps removed (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97). Inappropriate forceps polypectomy also varied by gastroenterologist (median OR, 3.43). In a post hoc analysis, the proportion of polyps >2 mm removed with forceps decreased from 50.0% before the intervention to 43.0% after it (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68).

Inappropriate forceps polypectomy is common but modifiable. The proportion of nondiminutive polyps removed with forceps polypectomy should be considered as a quality measure.

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

European guidelines recommends the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCP). However, for DCP < 4 mm cold biopsy forceps (CBF) may be optional. We aimed to compare the efficacy of CSP with CBF for removal of DCP in routine colonoscopy.

We conducted a multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. After screening, 123 patients were prospectively included and 180 DCPs were removed by either CBF or CSP after randomization (1:1). The primary end-point was the histological complete resection rate defined by negative additional biopsies taken from the edge of the polypectomy ulcer site.

Among DCPs, 121 (67.2%) adenomas or sessile serrated lesions were considered for the analysis. Polyps were 4 [1-5] mm in size, mostly flat (55.4%) and located in the proximal colon (44.6%). The en bloc resection rate was higher in the CSP group than the CBF group (91.7% vs. 42.6%, p < 0.001). The histological complete resection rate was comparable in the two groups (93.33% vs 90.16%; p = 0.527), even for polyps < 4 mm (91.30% vs 91.30%; p = 1). All specimens were retrieved and there was no difference in terms of procedure times and adverse events. Finally, univariate analysis did not identify any potential factor associated with complete resection rate.

In this study, CSP was comparable to CBF for the removal of DCP. Therefore, CBF may be considered as an alternative technique for resection of DCP, together with CSP, ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04727918).

Background and study aims  Practicing endoscopists have variable polypectomy skills during colonoscopy and limited training opportunities for improvement. Simulation-based training enhances procedural skill, but its impact on polypectomy is unclear. We developed a simulation-based polypectomy intervention to improve polypectomy competency. Methods  All faculty endoscopists at our tertiary care center who perform colonoscopy with polypectomy were recruited for a simulation-based intervention assessing sessile and stalked polypectomy. Endoscopists removed five polyps in a simulation environment at pretest followed by a training intervention including a video, practice, and one-on-one feedback. Within 1-4 weeks, endoscopists removed five new simulated polyps at post-test. We used the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) checklist for assessment, evaluating individual polypectomy skills, and global competency (scale: 1-4). Competency was defined as an average global competency score of ≥ 3. Results  83 % (29/35) of eligible endoscopists participated and 95 % (276/290) of planned polypectomies were completed. Only 17 % (5/29) of endoscopists had average global competency scores that were competent at pretest compared with 52 % (15/29) at post-test ( P  = 0.01). Of all completed polypectomies, the competent polypectomy rate significantly improved from pretest to post-test (55 % vs. 71 %; P  < 0.01). This improvement was significant for sessile polypectomy (37 % vs. 65 %; P  < 0.01) but not for stalked polypectomy (82 % vs. 80 %; P  = 0.70). Conclusions  Simulation-based training improved polypectomy skills among practicing endoscopists. Further studies are needed to assess the translation of simulation-based education to clinical practice.

Background and study aims  The aim of this study was to analyze presentation, management, and outcomes of large polyps (LPs; ≥ 20 mm) detected in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program using a quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients and methods  This was a retrospective community- and population-based observational study of all LPs detected in patients aged 50 to 74 years between 2015 and 2019 during FIT-positive colonoscopies within the screening program organized in Alsace (France). Results  Among 13,633 FIT-positive colonoscopies, 1256 LPs (8.5 % malignant and 51.8 % nonpedunculated) were detected by 102 community gastroenterologists in 1164 patients (one in 12 colonoscopies). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis of malignancy was 54 % for nonpedunculated and 27 % for pedunculated T1 CRCs. The endoscopic resection rate was 82.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 80.3-84.9) for benign LPs (70.2 % [95 % CI 66.4-74.1]) nonpedunculated, 95.2 % [95 % CI 93.4-97.1] pedunculated), varying from 0 to 100 % depending on the endoscopist. It was correlated with cecal intubation (Pearson r  = 0.49, P  < 0.01) and adenoma detection rates ( r  = 0.25, P  = 0.01). Most endoscopists did not refer patients to more experienced endoscopists, and as a result, 60 % to 90 % of 183 surgeries for benign LPs were unwarranted. Endoscopic resection was curative for 4.3 % (95 % CI 0.9-12.0) of nonpedunculated and 37.8 % (95 % CI 22.5-55.2) of pedunculated T1 CRCs. Overall, 22 endoscopic submucosal dissections had to be performed to avoid one surgery. Conclusions  Compared with current recommendations, there is tremendous room for improvement in community endoscopy practices in the diagnosis and management of LPs. Detection and polypectomy competencies are correlated and highly variable among endoscopists. Endoscopic resection is curative for 83 % of benign LPs and 16 % of T1 CRCs.

Incomplete resection of neoplastic polyps is considered an important reason for the development of colorectal cancer. However, there are no data on the natural history of polyps that were incompletely removed.

To examine the risk for metachronous neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy after documented incomplete polyp resection.

Observational cohort study of patients who participated in the CARE (Complete Adenoma REsection) study (2009 to 2012).

2 academic medical centers.

Patients who had resection of a 5- to 20-mm neoplastic polyp, had a documented complete or incomplete resection, and had a surveillance examination.

Segment metachronous neoplasia, defined as the proportion of colon segments with at least 1 neoplastic polyp at first surveillance examination, was measured. Segment metachronous neoplasia was compared between segments with a prior incomplete polyp resection (incomplete segments) and those with a prior complete resection (complete segments), accounting for clustering of segments within patients.

Of 233 participants in the original study, 166 (71%) had at least 1 surveillance examination. Median time to surveillance was shorter after incomplete versus complete resection (median, 17 vs. 45 months). The risk for any metachronous neoplasia was greater in segments with incomplete versus complete resection (52% vs. 23%; risk difference [RD], 28% [95% CI, 9% to 47%]; P = 0.004). Incomplete segments also had a greater number of neoplastic polyps (mean, 0.8 vs. 0.3; RD, 0.50 [CI, 0.1 to 0.9]; P = 0.008) and greater risk for advanced neoplasia (18% vs. 3%; RD, 15% [CI, 1% to 29%]; P = 0.034). Incomplete resection was the strongest independent factor associated with metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio, 3.0 [CI, 1.12 to 8.17]).

Potential patient selection bias due to incomplete follow-up.

This natural history study found a statistically significantly greater risk for future neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in colon segments after incomplete resection compared with segments with complete resection.

None.

The objective of the study was to assess the impact of an internal quality indicator (QI) audit on the quality level of colonoscopies in the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP).

Sixty-eight colonoscopists from 29 endoscopic centres participated in the NCCSP from April 2009 to January 2015. Controlled QIs were the percentage of total colonoscopies, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean adenoma per procedure (MAP), mean adenoma per positive procedure (MAP+), right-sided ADR, sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate, and patient responses to post-procedural questionnaires. A group of 3 expert endoscopists from the NCCSP Council performed 91 inspections and provided education.

A total of 891.364 (58.2%) Slovenian citizens participated in the first 3 screening rounds of the NCCSP. Among 46.552 (6%) positive individuals, 42.866 (92.1%) underwent first colonoscopies. Total colonoscopies were performed in 98% of endoscopies (p = 0.459 between cycles), mean ADR was 51.8% (p = 0.872 between cycles), mean percentage of adenoma in the right colon was 37.5% (p = 0.227 between cycles), mean MAP was 1.1 (p = 0.981 between cycles), mean MAP+ was 2.0 (p = 0.824 between cycles), and mean SSL detection rate was 3% (p < 0.001). We observed great difference in QIs between endoscopists and a significant increase in MAP, ADR in the right colon, and SSL per endoscopist during the 6-year period. Due to quality underperformance, 3 endoscopic centres (10.3%) and 13 endoscopists (19.1%) were excluded from the program.

The success of the NCCSP is related to the quality of colonoscopies performed. To ensure the proper quality level, regular audit and permanent education are needed.

Colonoscopy is currently considered the optimal method to detect colorectal neoplasia; however, some adenomas remain undetected. While indigo carmine staining with a dye-spray catheter has demonstrated promising results for reducing the miss rate, we investigated the oral indigo carmine method. The aim of this study was to determine whether oral indigo carmine intake before standard colonoscopy increases the adenoma (and adenocarcinoma) detection rate (ADR) or the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP).

The oral indigo carmine method was performed from April 2018 to July 2020 in two hospitals. Data were collected in a prospective manner and compared to the conventional group whose data were collected retrospectively and consecutively from January 2016 to March 2018. All data were anonymized.

Among the 704 patients included, colonoscopies were completely performed in 693 patients (347 in the indigo group). The ADR did not significantly differ between the groups: 42.3% vs. 40.3% (indigo vs. conventional group; odds ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.9-1.33, p = .33). The MAP was significantly greater in the indigo group (1.15) than that in the conventional group (0.82; p = .009). The cecal intubation rate and time to cecal intubation did not differ between the indigo and conventional group (98.6% vs. 98.3%, p = .83, and 6.2 min vs. 5.9 min, p = .39, respectively).

The routine use of oral indigo carmine does not lead to a higher ADR despite the higher MAP.

We developed a simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum that boosted self-care skills for patients with a ventricular assist device (VAD). In this study, we evaluated short-term skills retention.

We assessed skill retention among patients and caregivers who participated in VAD self-care SBML at a tertiary care center. We compared discharge skills tests (immediately after completing SBML) to 1- and 3-month follow-up tests to assess skill retention.

Fifteen patients and 15 caregivers completed discharge and follow-up testing. Skills were largely retained at 1- and 3-months.

SBML results in short-term retention of VAD self-care skills.

The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded.

A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases.

There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.

Although colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, interval CRCs (iCRCs) still occur. We aimed to determine iCRC incidence, assess the relationship between adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and iCRC rates, and evaluate iCRC rates over time concomitant with initiation of an institutional colonoscopy quality improvement (QI) program.

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at an academic medical center (January 2003 to December 2015). We identified iCRCs through our data warehouse and reviewed charts to confirm appropriateness for study inclusion. iCRC was defined as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 60 months and early iCRC as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 36 months after index colonoscopy. We measured the relationship between provider ADRs and iCRC rates and assessed iCRC rates over time with initiation of a QI program that started in 2010.

A total of 193,939 colonoscopies were performed over the study period. We identified 186 patients with iCRC. The overall iCRC rate was .12% and the early iCRC rate .06%. Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the highest ADR quartile (34%-52%) had a 4-fold lower iCRC risk (relative risk, .23; 95% confidence interval, .11-.48) than those undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the lowest quartile (12%-21%). After QI program initiation, overall iCRC rates improved from .15% to .08% (P < .001) and early iCRC rates improved from .07% to .04% (P = .004).

We confirmed that iCRC rate is inversely correlated with provider ADR. ADRs increased and iCRC rates decreased over time, concomitant with a QI program focused on split-dose bowel preparation, quality metric measurement, provider education, and feedback. iCRC rate measurement should be considered a feasible, outcomes-driven institutional metric of colonoscopy quality.

Colonoscopy is a safe and effective tool, but operator dependent. Room for improvement in the quality of colonoscopy is the impetus for the development and measurement of colonoscopy quality indicators and the focus of many efforts to improve colonoscopy quality indicator prevention and control in provider practices and health systems. We present the preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy. Every provider and practice must make a commitment to performing high-quality colonoscopy and implement and monitor quality metrics. There are a variety of tools available to assist in improving quality indicators that range from distal attachment devices to education and feedback. Although technology can help, it is not a substitute for proper technique. The commitment also requires provider feedback through audits and report cards. The impact of these efforts on patient outcomes is an important area of further research.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention by colonoscopy has been lower than expected. We studied CRC prevention outcomes of a colonoscopy protocol based on Clean the colon, Look Everywhere, and complete Abnormality Removal (CLEAR) principles.

This observational follow-up study studied patients provided screening colonoscopy at a free-standing private ambulatory surgery center in South Carolina by 80 endoscopists from October 2001 to December 2014, followed through December 2015. The colonoscopy protocol, optimized for polyp clearance, featured in-person bowel preparation instructions reinforced by phone, polyp search and removal throughout insertion and gradual withdrawal with circumferential tip movements, and a team approach using all personnel present to maximize polyp detection, patient safety, and clear-margin polypectomy including requesting repeat inspection or additional tissue removal. Outcome measures were postscreening lifetime CRC risk relative to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-18 and interval cancer rate (postcolonoscopy CRCs among cancer-free patients at screening).

Of 25,862 patients (mean age, 58.1 years; 52% black; 205,522 person-years of observation), 159 had CRC at screening and 67 patients developed interval CRC. The interval CRC rate was 3.34 per 10,000 person-years of observation, 5.79 and 2.24 among patients with and without adenomas, respectively. The rate was similar among older patients (mean age 68.5 years at screening) and with prolonged follow-up. Postscreening lifetime CRC risk was 1.6% (bootstrap 95% confidence interval, 1.3%-1.8%) versus 4.7% in SEER-18, 67% lower. Subgroups with mean screening ages of 50 and 68.5 years showed risk reductions of 80% and 72%, respectively. The adverse event rate was less than usually reported rates: perforation 2.6 per 10,000, bleeding with hospitalization 2.4 per 10,000, and no deaths.

A colonoscopy protocol optimized for polyp clearance prevented 67% of CRC compared with a SEER-18 population given ongoing population screening.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is associated with higher rates of complete resection compared with cold biopsy forceps (CBF) for the removal of small polyps (4-9 mm). This study aimed to evaluate self-reported polypectomy preferences and actual practice patterns among endoscopists at an academic center and to identify factors associated with the use of CSP for small polyps.

In phase A, endoscopists completed a survey evaluating preferences for polypectomy techniques. In phase B, we performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive colonoscopies with polypectomy (January 2016 to September 2018). Uni- and multivariate analysis were performed to identify factors associated with CSP for small polyps.

Nineteen of 26 (73%) endoscopists completed the survey (phase A); 3 (15.8%) were interventional endoscopists. Most respondents indicated that they use CSP (89.5%) for small polyps and identified no reasons for choosing CBF over CSP (73.7%). In phase B, we identified 1118 colonoscopies with 2625 polypectomies for polyps ≤9 mm. Most diminutive polyps (≤3 mm) were removed with CBF (819 of 912; 90%). CBF (46.2%) was also preferentially used for removal of small polyps (n = 1713), followed by hot snare polypectomy (27.2%), and CSP (26.6%). On multivariate analysis, interventional endoscopists were associated with a higher likelihood of using CSP for small polyps (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.79; P = .01).

Significant discrepancy exists between self-reported preferences and actual polypectomy practices. CBF is still preferentially used over CSP for the removal of polyps sized 4-9 mm; further strategies are needed to monitor and implement adequate polypectomy techniques.

The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings.

Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders.

Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18).

With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Ineffective polypectomy technique may lead to incomplete polyp resection, high complication rates, interval colorectal cancer, and costly referral to surgery. Despite its central importance to endoscopy, training in polypectomy is not standardized nor has the most effective training approach been defined. Polypectomy competence is rarely reported and quality metrics for this skill are lacking. Use of tools and measurements to assess polypectomy outcomes is low. There is a need for standardization of training and remediation in polypectomy; defining standards of competent polypectomy and how it is feasibly measured; and integration of polypectomy quality metrics into training programs and the accreditation process.

Diminutive colorectal lesions are polyps and flat lesions 1 to 5 mm in size, and small are 6 to 9 mm in size. The best resection method is the cold snare. Cold forceps are acceptable for 1- to 3-mm lesions, but should not be used to piecemeal polyps. Cold snaring has few complications and is more effective than cold forceps for 4- to 5-mm polyps and as effective and more efficient than hot snaring for 6- to 9-mm polyps.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) have been shown to be effective for removing diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm). However, no study has compared complete resection rates between CSP and JFP for DCPs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of JFP with CSP for the removal of DCPs.

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial from 2 tertiary-care referral centers. A total of 1003 patients were screened, and 169 patients with 196 DCPs were enrolled. The main outcome was complete polyp resection rate.

Of 196 diminutive polyps, 177 (90.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate was 92.1% (163/177). The complete resection rate was not significantly different between JFP and CSP groups (92.0% vs 92.2%; P = .947). JFP achieved complete resection rates comparable with CSP for polyps >3 mm (90.3% vs 89.8%; P = .928). Polypectomy procedure time, tissue retrieval rate, and rate of postpolypectomy adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Both JFP and CSP achieved complete resection rates of >90% for DCPs. Thus, JFP may be considered for polypectomy of DCPs. (International clinical trial registry number: KCT0002805.).

Colorectal cancer is defined clinically as invasion of dysplastic cells into the submucosa. Lesions with submucosal invasion but without invasion into the muscularis propria are generally called malignant polyps. A stepwise approach produces optimal management of malignant polyps (including polypoid and flat/depressed lesions). The first step is to avoid endoscopic resection of non-pedunculated lesions with endoscopic features that predict deep submucosal invasion. Lesions without such features are candidates for endoscopic resection. The second step is to assess candidates for endoscopic resection for features that predict an increased risk of superficial submucosal invasion. Such lesions should be considered for en bloc endoscopic excision if feasible. The third step is giving patients with endoscopically resected malignant polyps good advice regarding whether to undergo adjuvant therapy, usually surgery. We review the endoscopic and histologic criteria that guide clinicians through these steps.

Polyps <1 cm are the most commonly found polyps during colonoscopy. Cold snare removal is preferred given the significantly higher rate of incomplete resection associated with piecemeal biopsy forceps resection. There are currently no standardized tools to assess competence in cold snare polypectomy. This study aimed to develop and validate a cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (CSPAT).

Experts in cold snare polypectomy used a Delphi method to develop the CSPAT. Metrics with a greater than 85% agreement as being "important" or "very important" were included in the CSPAT. The tool included evaluation of polyp inspection, positioning, appropriate ensnarement of tissue to ensure a rim of normal tissue, tissue retrieval, and postpolypectomy site inspection. Experts in cold snare polypectomy used the CSPAT to evaluate preselected videos that were previously evaluated using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool. Interobserver agreement was evaluated. CSPAT scores were compared with DOPyS scores to assess content validity.

Sixteen experts developed the 12-item CSPAT, and 13 experts reviewed 55 videos. There was a moderate degree of agreement in 10 metrics (κ = .52-.59) and a substantial degree of agreement (κ = .61-.63) in the other 2. There was a strong correlation between the mean of individual metrics 1 to 12 compared with the global competence assessment (ρ = .88, P < .001). There was a moderate correlation between the average overall DOPyS score and the overall CSPAT competence score (ρ = .56, P < .001).

We have developed and validated a customized CSPAT that can be easily applied to video-based assessments to assess competence in training and among practicing endoscopists.

Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance.

We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 ("baseline"), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 ("pre-report card"), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 ("post-report card"), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre- and 10 post-report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre- and post-report card phases.

We graded 110 pre- and 110 post-report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre- and post-report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre- to post-report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2).

Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.