Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond

  • Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer (N Kubiliun, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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  Google Scholar 

  8. •• 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of South Alabama Medical Center, Mobile, AL, USA

    Matthew A. Mason

  2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of South Alabama Medical Center, 6000 University Commons, 75 University Blvd., South, Mobile, AL, 36688, USA

    Brooks D. Cash

Authors
  1. Matthew A. Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brooks D. Cash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brooks D. Cash.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Genetic Syndromes, Screening, and Surveillance in Colorectal Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mason, M.A., Cash, B.D. Quality Colorectal Cancer Screening: Endoscopic Performance Measures and Beyond. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 13, 310–315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-017-0380-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-017-0380-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation