nach oben

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Erschienen in:

13.06.2017 | Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)

Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond

verfasst von: Matthew A. Mason, Brooks D. Cash

Erschienen in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

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

Recent Findings

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

Summary

Multiple quality metrics have been formally evaluated regarding colonoscopy, and others have recently been proposed. Additional validation is necessary to determine which quality metrics serve as practical and implementable to improve endoscopic performance and overall delivery of care.

Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–50.CrossRefPubMed

Burke CA, Church JM. Enhancing the quality of colonoscopy: the importance of bowel purgatives. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:565–73.CrossRefPubMed

Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–9.CrossRefPubMed

Thomas-Gibson S, Rogers P, Cooper S, et al. Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates. Endoscopy. 2006;38:456–60.CrossRefPubMed

Menees S. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:519–26.CrossRef

Chokshi R, Hovis C, Hollander T, et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1197–203.CrossRefPubMed

Rex D, Petrini J, Baron T, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:873–85.PubMed

•• Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90. Multi-societal guidelines outlining current quality metrics in colonoscopy. CrossRefPubMed

Kang X, Zhao L, Leung F, et al. Delivery of instructions via mobile social media app increases quality of bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:429–35.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. 2014;63:125–30.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gurudu S, Ramirez F, Harrison M, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:603–8.CrossRefPubMed

12.

• Bucci C, Rotondano G, Rea M, et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:566–76. Recent meta-analyses showing the superiority of split-dose bowel preparations compared to single-dose preparations. CrossRefPubMed

13.

Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, et al. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:79–88.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Calderwood A, Jacobson B. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

•• Lieberman D, Rex D, Winawer S, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–57. US multi-society task force stance of appropriate CRC surveillance intervals, particularly focused on post-polypectomy surveillance, based on updated evidence. CrossRefPubMed

16.

Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ, et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2664–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:89–95.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rex D. How I approach retroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:9–11.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T, et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:415–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:519–22.CrossRefPubMed

22.

•• Corley D, Jensen C, Marks A, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–306. Landmark article showing the direct relationship between ADR and risk for the development of CRC. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Williams J, Holub J, Faigel D. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:576–82.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut. 2016;65:616–24.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Belderbos TD, Grobbee EJ, van Oijen MG, et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; (epub ahead of print, accessed at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0034-1391968 on 13/07/2015).

27.

Allen JI. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;17:1–9.CrossRef

28.

Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, et al. Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1259–64.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:452–6.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:96–102.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M, et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1182–99.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Jaramillo E, Tamura S, Mitomi H. Endoscopic appearance of serrated adenomas in the colon. Endoscopy. 2005;37:254–60.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2088–100.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Spring KJ, Zhao ZZ, Karamatic R, et al. High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas with BRAF mutations: a prospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1400–7.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–6.CrossRefPubMed

36.

• Anderson J, Butterly L, Weiss J, Robinson C. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; doi:10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.020. An important study that proposes appropriate serrated polyp detection rates based on ADR as a surrogate marker of performance.

37.

Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Cowlishaw D, et al. High-definition vs. standard-definition colonoscopy in the characterization of small colonic polyps: results from a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:905–10.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Pellisé M, Fernández-Esparrach G, Cárdenas A, et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1062–8.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Dik V, Moons L, Siersema P. Endoscopic innovations to increased the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(9):2200–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

East JE, Ignjatovic A, Suzuki N, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of narrowband imaging vs high-definition white light for adenoma detection in patients at high risk of adenomas. Color Dis. 2012;14:e771–8.CrossRef

41.

Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–41.CrossRefPubMed

42.

• Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:417–26. Study that supported previous recommendations for withdrawal time and associated increased ADR. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Løberg M, Kalager M, Holme Ø, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):799–807.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Mysliwiec P, Brown ML, Klabunde C, Ransohoff D. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:264–71.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Schoen R, Pinsky P, Weissfeld J, et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:73–81.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Lin O, Kozarek R, Arai A, et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1253–9.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Bechtold M, Perez R, Puli S, Marshall J. Effect of music on patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:7309–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

McQuaid K, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:910–23.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Ulmer B, Hansen J, Overley C, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:425–32.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond
verfasst von: Matthew A. Mason
Brooks D. Cash
Publikationsdatum: 13.06.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Colorectal Cancer Reports / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1556-3790
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-3804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-017-0380-7

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond