The Korean journal of internal medicine

The Korean Association of Internal Medicine (대한내과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer

  • Joo Hye Song (Department of Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine) ;
  • Eun Ran Kim (Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2023.08.11
  • Accepted : 2023.10.15
  • Published : 2024.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

Keywords

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-249. 
  2. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642. 
  3. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL. Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 1987;93:1009-1013. 
  4. Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins RH Jr, et al.; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:378-386. 
  5. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-1981. 
  6. Cha JM. Colonoscopy quality is the answer for the emerging issue of interval cancer. Intest Res 2014;12:110-116. 
  7. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002;12:1-9, v. 
  8. Hong SW, Byeon JS. Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer. Intest Res 2022;20:281-290. 
  9. Kim SY, Kwak MS, Yoon SM, et al.; Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Korean Society of Gastroenterology; Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases. Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 revised edition. Intest Res 2023;21:20-42. 
  10. Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:856-861. 
  11. Yoon JY, Cha JM, Jeen YT; Medical Policy Committee of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID); Quality Improvement Committee of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening. Intest Res 2018;16:48-54. 
  12. Armstrong D, Barkun A, Bridges R, et al.; Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2012;26:17-31. 
  13. Sharma RS, Rossos PG. A review on the quality of colonoscopy reporting. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;2016:9423142. 
  14. Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:1155-1162. 
  15. Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T, Early DS, Wang JS. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1197-1203. 
  16. Lee HS, Byeon JS. Bowel preparation, the first step for a good quality colonoscopy. Intest Res 2014;12:1-2. 
  17. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:72-90. 
  18. Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA clinical practice update on strategies to improve quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy: expert review. Gastroenterology 2021;161:701-711. 
  19. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017;49:378-397. 
  20. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:686-692. 
  21. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:482-486. 
  22. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:346-352. 
  23. Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1714-1723;quiz 1724. 
  24. Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A, et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016;150:396-405; quiz e14-e15. 
  25. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:543-562. 
  26. Woo DH, Kim KO, Jeong DE, et al. Prospective analysis of factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in actual clinical practice. Intest Res 2018;16:293-298. 
  27. Hwang YJ, Shin DW, Kim N, et al. Sex difference in bowel preparation quality and colonoscopy time. Korean J Intern Med 2021;36:322-331. 
  28. Calderwood AH, Holub JL, Greenwald DA. Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:360-367.e2. 
  29. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019;51:775-794. 
  30. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):700-706. 
  31. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al.; US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014;147:903-924. 
  32. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al.; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013;45:142-150. 
  33. Enestvedt BK, Tofani C, Laine LA, Tierney A, Fennerty MB. 4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1225-1231. 
  34. Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, Restellini S, Kherad O, Vanasse A. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015;149:79-88. 
  35. Horton N, Garber A, Hasson H, Lopez R, Burke CA. Impact of single- vs. split-dose low-volume bowel preparations on bowel movement kinetics, patient inconvenience, and polyp detection: a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:1330-1337. 
  36. Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM, et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1240-1245. 
  37. Levey JM. Same day prep for afternoon colonoscopy: everybody wins! J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:4-5. 
  38. Kang X, Zhao L, Zhu Z, et al. Same-day single dose of 2 liter polyethylene glycol is not inferior to the standard bowel preparation regimen in low-risk patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:601-610. 
  39. Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB, Ng Kwet Shing R, Alvarez-Gonzalez M; MORA Study Group. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019;51:60-72. 
  40. DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J, Epstein MS; NOCT Study Group. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:677-687.e3. 
  41. Hong SN, Lee CK, Im JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:500-511.e2. 
  42. Kwon KH, Lee JA, Lim YJ, et al. A prospective randomized clinical study evaluating the efficacy and compliance of oral sulfate solution and 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol. Korean J Intern Med 2020;35:873-880. 
  43. Yang HJ, Park DI, Park SK, et al. Novel sulfate tablet PBK1701TC versus oral sulfate solution for colon cleansing: a randomized phase 3 trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:29-36. 
  44. Jeon SR, Park SK, Yang DH, Cha JM. Comparison of a novel mini-oral sulfate tablet and the conventional oral sulfate tablet in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, non-inferior, phase 3 trial. J Gastroenterol 2023;58:1114-1123. 
  45. Na JE, Kim ER. How to choose the optimal bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy. Ewha Med J 2021;44:122-132. 
  46. Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012;61:1050-1057. 
  47. Rex DK, Chen SC, Overhiser AJ. Colonoscopy technique in consecutive patients referred for prior incomplete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:879-883. 
  48. Yang MH, Cho J, Rampal S, et al. The association between cecal insertion time and colorectal neoplasm detection. BMC Gastroenterol 2013;13:124. 
  49. Adler J, Robertson DJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1657-1664; quiz 1665. 
  50. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011;140:65-72. 
  51. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1298-1306. 
  52. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795-1803. 
  53. Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016;65:616-624. 
  54. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Lee JK, et al. Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:609-617. 
  55. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017;153:98-105. 
  56. Schottinger JE, Jensen CD, Ghai NR, et al. Association of physician adenoma detection rates with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. JAMA 2022;327:2114-2122. 
  57. Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG, Leighton JA, Ramirez FC. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:993-999. 
  58. Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, Harewood GC, Wallace M. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:493-497. 
  59. Aniwan S, Orkoonsawat P, Viriyautsahakul V, et al. The secondary quality indicator to improve prediction of adenoma miss rate apart from adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:723-729. 
  60. Han JH, Kim HG, Ahn EM, et al. Correlation between surrogate quality indicators for adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate in qualified colonoscopy, CORE study: KASID multicenter study. Gut Liver 2022;16:716-725. 
  61. Hong SW, Byeon JS. What is the optimal surrogate indicator for a miss rate of adenoma in colonoscopy? Gut Liver 2022;16:661-662. 
  62. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533-2541. 
  63. Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015;149:952-957. 
  64. Jung Y, Joo YE, Kim HG, et al. Relationship between the endoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma/polyp detection rate in individual colonic segments: a KASID multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:523-530. 
  65. 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;109:417-426. 
  66. Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M, et al. Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:395-400. 
  67. Troelsen FS, Sorensen HT, Pedersen L, et al. Root-cause analysis of 762 Danish post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:3160-3169.e5. 
  68. Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1909-1918. 
  69. Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014;46:388-402. 
  70. Reumkens A, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM, Winkens B, Masclee AA, Sanduleanu S. Post-colonoscopy complications: a systematic review, time trends, and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:1092-1101. 
  71. Kothari ST, Huang RJ, Shaukat A, et al.; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee Chair. ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:863-876.e33. 
  72. Park SB, Cha JM. Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality. Clin Endosc;55:332-338. 
  73. Yoon JY, Cha JM, Jeen YT; Medical Policy Committee of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID); Quality Improvement Committee of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Quality is the key for emerging issues of population-based colonoscopy screening. Clin Endosc 2018;51:50-55. 
  74. Lee JG, Han DS, Joo YE, et al. Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea. Korean J Intern Med 2021;36(Suppl 1):S35-S43. 
  75. Choi JH, Cha JM, Yoon JY, Kwak MS, Jeon JW, Shin HP. The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea. Intest Res 2019;17:119-126.