Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Areas for Future Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Colorectal Cancer Screening

  • 892 Accesses

Abstract

A movement to improve the quality of colonoscopy has gained considerable momentum. While efforts to improve adherence to current quality measurements are very important, numerous aspects of the quality process need further refinement. The adenoma detection rate may be replaced by a measurement such as adenomas per colonoscopy. Higher levels of adenoma detection by endoscopists will be expected in the future. Many of the proposed process measures must be validated by demonstrating that they improve outcomes. A variety of potential methods to correct low-level detection must be proven to be effective. Many aspects of colonoscopy technique, particularly polypectomy techniques, have not yet been sufficiently studied to establish best practice and create quality targets.

Disclaimer: This report was funded by a gift from Scott and Kay Shurz of loomington, IN.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterol. 1997;112:24–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;97:1296–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:856–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE, et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1288–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH, et al. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:1335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hetzel J, Huang CS, Coukos JA, Omstead K, Cerda SR, Yang S, O'Brien MJ, Farraye FA. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2656–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, et al. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterol. 1997;112:17–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures asociated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol. 2011;140:65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM, et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:663–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R. Endoscopist specialty is associated with incident colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:275–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahadev S, Green PH, Lebwohl B. Rates of suboptimal preparation differ markedly between providers; impact on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:AB510–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy—results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterol. 2013;144:74–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, et al. 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 

  17. Saini SD, Nayak RS, Kuhn L, et al. Why don’t gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines? Results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43:554–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterol. 2010;138:73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterol. 2010;139:1128–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated? Gut. 2006;55:1145–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:22–30.

    Article  PubMed  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. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Improving colonoscopy quality through health-care payment reform. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1925–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:S3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rex DK, Schoenfeld, PS, Cohon, J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc.2015;81:31–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Munroe CA, Lee P, Copland A, et al. A tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates during endoscopic training: a venture into uncharted territory. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:561–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hill A, Horswill MS, Plooy AM, et al. Assessing the realism of colonoscopy simulation: the development of an instrument and systematic comparison of 4 simulators. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:631–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J, Cohen SA, Vora KC, et al. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of virtual-reality simulator training in acquisition of competency in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rex DK, Hewett DG, Snover DC. Detection targets for colonoscopy: from variable detection to validation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2665–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R, et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Corley DA, Marks AR, Zhao W, Lee JK, Quesenberry C, et al. Physician adenoma detection rate variability and subsequent colorectal cancer risk following a negative colonoscopy. Gastroenterol. 2013;144:S2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut. 2014;63(6):949–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rondagh EJ, Gulikers S, Gomez-Garcia EB, et al. Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms: a challenge in endoscopic surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome. Endoscopy. 2013;45:257–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Edelstein DL, Axilbund J, Baxter M, et al. Rapid development of colorectal neoplasia in patients with lynch syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:340–3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1315–29.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Stegmaier C, et al. Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840,149 screening colonoscopies. Gut. 2007;56:1585–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen SC, Rex DK. Variable detection of nonadenomatous polyps by individual endoscopists at colonoscopy and correlation with adenoma detection. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:704–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:493–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. 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 

  41. Kahi CJ, Li X, Eckert GJ, et al. High colonoscopic prevalence of proximal colon serrated polyps in average-risk men and women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:515–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Khalid O, Radaideh S, Cummings OW, et al. Reinterpretation of histology of proximal colon polyps called hyperplastic in 2001. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:3767–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M, et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:419–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:656–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS, et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:925–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Konstantinidis K, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of cold vs hot snare polypectomy in the occurrence of postpolypectomy bleeding in small colonic polyps. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e345–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ichise Y, Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Digestion. 2011;84:78–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:118–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Paroutoglou G, et al. A comparative study of 50 % dextrose and normal saline solution on their ability to create submucosal fluid cushions for endoscopic resection of sessile rectosigmoid polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:692–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee C, Kim JW, Jang JY. Cold SNARE polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy using double biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Orlando: DDW; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Aslan F, Alper E, Vatansever S, Akpinar Z, Camci M, Arabul M, et al. Cold SNARE polypectomy versus standard SNARE polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:AB561.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Why we should CARE about polypectomy technique. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:16–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana School of Medicine, IU Hospital, 4100 550 N. University Boulevard, 46202, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Douglas K. Rex

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University (MSU), 48824, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Ashish K. Tiwari

Authors
  1. Douglas K. Rex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashish K. Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas K. Rex .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    Aasma Shaukat

  2. Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    John I. Allen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rex, D., Tiwari, A. (2015). Areas for Future Research. In: Shaukat, A., Allen, J. (eds) Colorectal Cancer Screening. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2333-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2333-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2332-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2333-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation