Implementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study

Background and study aims: Endoscopists worldwide have been encouraged to report quality indicators in order to evaluate their performance. We aimed to determine whether a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy results in better rates of neoplasia detection.

Patients and methods: This is a prospective study set in a private endoscopy center. From May 2009 to March 2010, we evaluated 1573 consecutive colonoscopies (group 1). After the implementation of a quality program, from February 2011 to January 2012, we prospectively evaluated 1583 colonoscopies (group 2). Our quality-enhancing intervention consisted of instructing both patients and endoscopists. We measured the cecal intubation rate and the neoplasia detection rate. Overall neoplasias, high-risk adenomas, carcinomas, right colon adenomas, and adenomas detected in screening studies were analyzed.

Results: Cecal intubation was documented in 1384 cases from group 1 (88 %) and 1534 from group 2 (96.9 %) (P < 0.0001). The neoplasia detection rates in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively: neoplasias 288 (18.3 %) and 427 (27 %) (P < 0.0001), high-risk adenomas 76 (4.8 %) and 142 (9 %) (P < 0.0001), carcinomas 16 (1 %) and 21 (1.3 %) (P = 0.52), right colon adenomas 112 (7.1 %) and 154 (9.7 %) (P = 0.01), and adenomas 141 (16.5 %) and 233 (28 %) (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Implementation of a quality program improves the neoplasia detection rate. Because of the small number of cancerous lesions found in both groups, we were unable to identify differences in the carcinoma detection rate.

• References

• 1 Minoli G, Radaelli F. A new way for improving the quality of colonoscopy?. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 285-286
• 2 Lee TJW, Rutter MD, Blanks RG et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
• 3 Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 757-766
• 4 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
• 5 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-S28
• 6 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
• 7 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U. S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
• 8 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the U. S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
• 9 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
• 10 Lieberman D. A call to action - Measuring the quality of colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2588-2589
• 11 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 12 Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single center study of 10,571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 745-748
• 13 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
• 14 Cohen LB. Split dosing of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an analysis of its efficacy,safety and tolerability. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 406-412
• 15 Parra-Blanco A, Nicolás-Pérez D, Gimeno-García A et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6161-6166
• 16 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 17 Connor A, Tolan D, Hughes S et al. Consensus guidelines for the safe prescription and administration of oral bowel-cleansing agents. Gut 2012; 61: 1525-1532
• 18 Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Eng J Med 1992; 326: 658-662
• 19 IJspeert JEG, Vermeulen L, Meijer GA et al. Serrated neoplasia—role in colorectal carcinogenesis and clinical implications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 12: 401-409
• 20 Imperiali G, Minoli G, Meucci GM et al. Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 314-318
• 21 Rex D. Avoiding and defending malpractice suits for postcolonoscopy cancer:advice from an expert witness. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 768-773
• 22 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
• 23 Jover R, Herráiz M, Alarcón O et al. Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 444-451
• 24 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692