mis

Hot Keywords
Non-small cell lung cancer Artificial intelligence Gastroesophageal reflux Esophagectomy Thoracic surgery Atherosclerosis Robotic surgery Gastric cancer Lung cancer Lobectomy Complications Quality of life Rectal cancer

Top
Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:25. 10.20517/2574-1225.2021.146 © The Author(s) 2022.
Open Access Review

Colonoscopy quality and endoscopist factors: what are the required endoscopist conditions for high-quality colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality?

1Cancer Screening Center/Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.

2Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 182 57, Sweden.

3Division of Screening Technology, National Cancer Center Institute for Cancer Control, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.

4Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo 143-8541, Japan.

5Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.

6Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Solna (MedS), Stockholm 171 76, Sweden.

Correspondence to: Dr. Masau Sekiguchi, Cancer Screening Center/Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan. E-mail: masekigu@ncc.go.jp

    Views:183 |  Downloads:49 |  Cited:0 |  Comments:0 |  :3
    Academic Editors: Giulio Belli, Hyun-Soo Kim | Copy Editor: Xi-Jun Chen | Production Editor: Xi-Jun Chen

    © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

    Abstract

    To maximize the effectiveness of colonoscopy in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), high-quality colonoscopy procedures are essential. Considering that the colonoscopy quality varies among endoscopists, it is important to understand the endoscopist factors that influence the colonoscopy quality. In this paper, we reviewed the endoscopist factors related to colonoscopy quality. There are several quality indicators of colonoscopy, among which the adenoma detection rate is the most established indicator with evidence of its correlation with post-colonoscopy CRC. With respect to lesion detectability during colonoscopy, there are other measurements such as the sessile serrated lesion detection rate; however, further evidence on their relationships with post-colonoscopy CRC is needed. Previous studies that have examined the endoscopist characteristics influencing colonoscopy quality have suggested that several factors, including experience, the volume of colonoscopy procedures, and endoscopist specialty, are related to lesion detectability. However, discrepancies exist regarding the studies’ results; in particular, the influence of endoscopist specialty on coloscopy quality is controversial. Some recent studies have demonstrated that endoscopist specialty is not related to lesion detectability when considering confounding factors. Furthermore, it has been reported that nurse endoscopists can provide high-quality colonoscopy after training. It may be possible for endoscopists to improve their colonoscopy quality, regardless of specialty. Training, monitoring, and feedback of colonoscopy quality measurements are useful interventions for endoscopists to ensure high-quality procedures. Owing to the continuous development of endoscopic technologies, it is believed that training is useful for both inexperienced and experienced endoscopists.

    INTRODUCTION

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and reducing CRC incidence and mortality is an essential task[1]. For this purpose, CRC screening is widely implemented[2]. In CRC screening, colonoscopy is utilized as either the primary screening procedure or secondary examination following a positive noninvasive screening test, such as a fecal blood test[2]. Colonoscopy not only has high detectability and diagnostic ability but can also treat precancerous lesions during the procedure, known as polypectomy[2-4]. Polypectomy has been shown to be effective for the prevention of CRC incidence and mortality[5-7]. The usefulness of colonoscopy as a secondary examination in CRC screening can be referenced from the literature, which clearly shows the CRC incidence and mortality reduction effect of screening fecal blood test followed by colonoscopy[8-13]. With regard to colonoscopy as a primary screening procedure, although evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking, increasing evidence from high-quality cohort and case-control studies shows its effectiveness in reducing CRC incidence and mortality[14-18]. Furthermore, several large-scale RCTs examining the effect of screening colonoscopy are currently ongoing, including trials in Spain (COLONPREV), the USA (CONFIRM), Europe (NordICC), Japan (Akita pop-colon trial), and Sweden (SCREESCO)[19-22]. Despite such promising effectiveness, colonoscopy is not perfect, as colorectal neoplastic lesions can be missed during colonoscopy. In a previous study, the adenoma miss rate was reportedly between 9% and 26%[23]. The quality of colonoscopy, including its ability to detect lesions, is known to vary in real-world practice and is considerably influenced by the endoscopists who perform the procedure[24-27]. To maximize the effectiveness of colonoscopy to prevent CRC incidence and mortality, it is necessary to assure high-quality colonoscopy. In this paper, we review the issues of colonoscopy quality and related endoscopist factors to discuss what the required endoscopist conditions are to perform a high-quality colonoscopy. We also describe the experiences in Japan and Sweden on this issue.

    QUALITY INDICATORS OF COLONOSCOPY

    There are several established quality indicators for colonoscopy, which include preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural indicators[24-27]. Experience (satisfaction and comfort level) of individuals receiving colonoscopy has also been proposed as quality indicators. Table 1 summarizes several major colonoscopy quality indicators. In this table, the performance targets for the indicators proposed in major international guidelines are described.

    Table 1

    Major quality indicators of colonoscopy

    ASGEESGEUK
    Performance targetMinimum standardTarget standardMinimum standardAspirational target
    Adequate bowel preparation≥ 85%≥ 90%≥ 95%≥ 90%≥ 95%
    Cecal intubation rate≥ 90% (all), ≥ 95% (screening)≥ 90%≥ 95%≥ 90%≥ 95%
    Adenoma detection rate≥ 25% (males ≥ 30%, females ≥ 20%)≥ 25%-≥ 15%≥ 20%
    Average withdrawal time for negative examinations≥ 6 min≥ 6 min≥ 10 min≥ 6 min≥ 10 min
    ComplicationsPerforation: < 1/1000
    Postpolypectomy bleeding: < 1%
    7-day readmission: ≤ 0.5%Perforation: < 1/1000 (overall), < 1/2000 (diagnostic), < 1/500 (polypectomy)
    Postpolypectomy bleeding: < 1/200
    Perforation: < 1/3000 (overall), < 1/4000 (diagnostic), < 1/1500 (polypectomy)
    Postpolypectomy bleeding: < 1/1000

    Among the indicators, the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most established measurement that assesses the colonoscopy quality; in addition, ADR is often used as a measurement of improvement when discussing how colonoscopy quality can be improved[24-30]. ADR is defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma detected, and it can be calculated by the number of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma detected divided by the number of all colonoscopies. Because ADR is largely affected by colonoscopy indications (screening, surveillance, etc.), ADR should principally be compared with that in colonoscopy procedures with the same indications. It is known that there is a wide ADR variation among endoscopists, and a lower ADR is associated with a higher risk of post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) incidence and mortality[24-30]. In 2010, a landmark study from Poland clearly showed that endoscopists with an ADR < 20% during screening colonoscopy had an over 10-fold higher incidence of PCCRC than those with an ADR ≥ 20%[28]. Thereafter, the evidence on ADR as the quality indicator has accumulated[24-30]. In 2014, a United States study demonstrated that each 1% increase in ADR was associated with a 3% and 5% decrease in the risk of PCCRC and fatal PCCRC, respectively[29]. Although ADR is such an established quality indicator, there are several issues requiring discussion. Due to the higher chances of detecting diminutive adenomas during colonoscopy, the performance target for ADR may be reconsidered[31]. For instance, based on experience in Japan, it seems that adenomas can be detected in over 40% of average-risk individuals aged ≥ 50 years, and an ADR of 20% is considered low even if it is the minimum target cut-off value[32].

    In addition to ADR, there are several other measurements regarding lesion detectability during colonoscopy, although evidence on their usefulness as quality indicators of colonoscopy is less sufficient than that of ADR[26]. Because the detection and removal of advanced adenomas seem more relevant for CRC prevention than those of small adenomas, the rate of advanced adenoma detection may be useful for assessing colonoscopy quality. As the clinical importance of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) has become widely recognized, increasing attention has been paid to its detection [Figure 1][33-35]. As many SSLs are macroscopically normal to pale in color and flat in shape, these lesions are more difficult to detect and more easily overlooked during colonoscopy[34,35]. Therefore, the SSL detection rate may show more variation among endoscopists than that of ADR, and its potential as a quality indicator is worth further assessment. In addition, considering the malignant potential and easily overlooked appearance of colorectal flat adenomas such as laterally spreading tumors, the detection rate of flat adenomas is also a candidate as a quality indicator [Figure 2][36-38]. The polyp detection rate and polypectomy rate can be mentioned as simpler measurements not requiring histopathological results, and these may be useful when the calculation of lesion detection rates incorporating the pathological results is difficult[26]. However, it should be remembered that these measurements can be easily subject to manipulation by endoscopists.

    Figure 1. A case of colorectal sessile serrated lesion. The lesion shown in Figure 1 is a sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detected during a colonoscopy. SSLs are often flat and macroscopically normal to pale in color, as shown in this case, and can be easily overlooked. The detection of SSLs is important, and the detection rate of SSLs may be a quality measurement of colonoscopy.

    Figure 2. A case of a colorectal lateral spreading tumor. The lesion shown in Figure 2 is a lateral spreading tumor (LST) detected during colonoscopy, followed by endoscopic submucosal dissection. The pathological diagnosis after treatment was tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. LSTs are known to have high malignant potential, but they are easily overlooked and can cause post-colonoscopy cancer. The detection of LSTs is essential, and the detection rate of these flat lesions may be a quality measurement of colonoscopy.

    It may also be necessary to consider the number of lesions detected during colonoscopy to reflect colonoscopy quality more clearly. The mean adenomas per procedure, which is calculated as the total number of adenomas detected divided by the total number of colonoscopy procedures, and mean adenomas per positive procedure, which is calculated by the total number of adenomas detected divided by the number of colonoscopy procedures with at least one adenoma detected, are measurements incorporating the number of adenomas detected[26,39]. These measurements may be better representations for lesion detectability of endoscopists; thus, further studies on the relationships between these measurements and PCCRC are warranted.

    ENDOSCOPIST FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE COLONOSCOPY QUALITY

    Colonoscopy performance can be affected by many factors, including bowel preparation, endoscopy devices, and procedural skills. Particularly, procedural skills that are variable among endoscopists are considerably influential. In this context, it is believed to be important to understand endoscopist factors associated with colonoscopy quality.

    Several previous studies have examined the relationships between endoscopist characteristics and colonoscopy quality, particularly lesion detectability during colonoscopy, such as ADR[40-47]. Table 2 summarizes the recent studies that retrospectively examined the endoscopist factors related to lesion detectability using certain databases[40-47]. They suggest that age, sex, specialty, procedural experience, number of colonoscopy procedures recently performed, and more recent exposure to training may be related to higher lesion (adenoma or serrated lesion) detectability during colonoscopy, although discrepancies exist for the obtained findings among the studies. Despite the necessity for further assessment, it is understandable that endoscopists with more experience and a higher number of performed colonoscopy procedures will have higher lesion detectability. However, regarding the endoscopist specialty, its relationship with the quality of colonoscopy is controversial. Several previous studies, including those described in Table 2, suggest the superiority of gastroenterologists to non-gastroenterologists and surgeons in terms of lesion detectability[41,43-45,47]. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that gastroenterologists showed a lower incidence of PCCRC[48-50]. However, some recent studies have emphasized that endoscopist specialty does not remain statistically related to lesion detectability when sufficiently considering confounding factors[40,46]. A recent study from the USA has proposed that, after considering and adjusting for patient and endoscopist characteristics, ADR is not related to any endoscopist characteristic, and only the years in practice and number of colonoscopies performed per year were related to the proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rate[46]. If it is interpreted positively with respect to endoscopist specialty, the colonoscopy quality may be improved regardless of the specialty.

    Table 2

    Recent studies that have examined endoscopist factors and lesion detectability during colonoscopy

    AuthorRegionReport yearData sourceNumber of endoscopistsNumber of colonoscopy proceduresColonoscopy indicationExamined measurements for lesion detectabilityAdenoma detection rateMain findings on endoscopist factors related with lesion detectability
    Kozbial et al.[40]Austria2015Austrian national Certificate of Quality for Screening Colonoscopy program17859,901ScreeningADR, AADR, PDR, CDR, FDR20.5% (88 endoscopists: ADR < 20%)Specialty did not remain related to ADR after adjustments for other factors
    Zorzi et al.[41]Italy2015Italian organized CRC screening program47975,569Positive FITADR, AADR, PDR44.8% (range: 13.5%-75%)Specialty (gastroenterology) and availability of screening-dedicated sessions were related to a higher ADR
    Jover et al.[42]Spain2016COLONPREV study cohort483838ScreeningADR, AADR, APCR31.5% (range: 4.5%-56.5%)Age and number of performed colonoscopies were related to ADR, and exclusive dedication to endoscopy practice was related to proximal ADR
    Mehrotra et al.[43]USA2018Four American healthcare sites201104,618VariousADR33.2% (range: 6.3%-58.7%)Specialty (gastroenterologist), sex (female), and recent training were related to a higher ADR (both proximal and distal ADRs).
    Crockett et al.[44]USA2019Four American healthcare sites201104,618VariousSPDR-Specialty (gastroenterologist), number of colonoscopy procedures, and recent training were related to a higher SPDR
    Mandaliya et al.[45]USA2019A single center182850ScreeningADR, PSPDR36% (range: 21%-53%)Specialty (academic gastroenterologist) was related to a higher PSPDR but not ADR
    Sarvepalli et al.[46]USA2019A single center5616,089ScreeningADR, PSSPDR31.3%After adjusting for patient and endoscopist characteristics, no endoscopist characteristic was associated with ADR, and only the years in practice and number of colonoscopies performed per year were related with PSSPDR
    Muthukuru et al.[47]USA2020A single center844151ScreeningADR, SSPDR, etc.26.4%Specialty (gastroenterologist) was associated with a higher ADR and SSDR, particularly in the proximal colon

    Regarding the issue of the endoscopist’s specialty, the concept of nurse endoscopists is also worthy of attention[51-58]. In several places, including the UK, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, trained and certified nurse endoscopists perform colonoscopy procedures in daily practice. Table 3 summarizes previous studies that have examined the performance of colonoscopy procedures performed by nurse endoscopists. It has been suggested that, similar to doctor endoscopists, nurse endoscopists can provide sufficiently high-quality colonoscopy after training. The required number of colonoscopy procedures for nurse endoscopist trainees before they can start performing colonoscopy procedures independently is reportedly 140-150[53,57]. A recent report from the USA showed that three nurse endoscopists who had completed at least 140 supervised colonoscopy procedures provided cecal intubation rates of 95.6%-98.9% and ADRs of 27.8%-44.5% without any severe complications during screening colonoscopies[58]. In Sweden, approximately 60 nurse endoscopists currently play an important role in endoscopy practice. There are training programs for nurse endoscopist trainees in which they are required to acquire knowledge and skills regarding endoscopy through lectures and hands-on training. After receiving training and passing certification examinations, they can become certified nurse endoscopists. The requirement for certified nurse endoscopists to perform screening colonoscopy is having performed ≥ 1000 colonoscopy procedures and performing ≥ 200 procedures per year.

    Table 3

    Previous studies that have examined the performance of colonoscopy by nurse endoscopists

    AuthorRegionReport yearStudy designNumber of nurse endoscopistsNumber of colonoscopy procedures performed by nurse endoscopistsColonoscopy indicationPerforation rate by nurse endoscopistsCecal intubation rate by nurse endoscopistsAdenoma detection rate by nurse endoscopists
    Koornstra et al.[53]Netherlands2009Single-center prospective study2 (trainee)300Various0%90.7% (96% for the last 25 cases)-
    Limoges-Gonzalez et al.[54]USA2011Single-center RCT (compared with doctor endoscopists)1 (trained)50Screening0%100%42.0%
    van Putten et al.[55]Netherlands2012Multicenter prospective10 (trained)1000Various0.1%94%26.7%
    Massl et al.[56]Netherlands2014Multicenter prospective7 (trainee)866Various0%77% (unassisted: increased to 89% during assessment period), 95% (assisted)27%
    Hui et al.[57]Hong Kong2015Single-center RCT (compared with doctor endoscopists)3 (trained)364Screening0%97.3%43.8%
    Riegert et al.[58]USA2020Single-center retrospective study3 (trained)1012Screening0%98.5%35.6%

    INTERVENTION ON ENDOSCOPISTS TO IMPROVE COLONOSCOPY QULAITY

    The development and utilization of efficient endoscopy devices and technologies are important strategies for improving colonoscopy quality. However, even with efficient devices and technologies, if endoscopists do not possess the ability to properly utilize them, high-quality colonoscopy procedures cannot be performed. In this sense, it is essential to ensure that endoscopists possess sufficient ability to provide high-quality colonoscopy procedures. As indicated by previous studies on the endoscopist factors influencing colonoscopy quality, sufficient experience and number of colonoscopy procedures are required for providing high-quality colonoscopy[42-44]. However, it would be inefficient and potentially harmful if inexperienced endoscopists continue performing a colonoscopy on their own without any guidance, and adequate training for endoscopists is indispensable. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis incorporating three RCTs clearly demonstrated that focused training is useful for improving ADR among endoscopists[59-62]. However, the method of training was variable in previous studies, and, thus, more discussion is necessary on the optimal method of training. Trainees should acquire both knowledge and skills during their training period, and, therefore, lectures and hands-on training under the supervision of experts are necessary. A certification system in which endoscopists can become certified only after a specific training program may also be useful. In Japan, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has a certification system in which several conditions, including at least five years of endoscopy training and passing an examination, are required for trainees to become certified endoscopists. In addition, the JGES has just started a new certification system for screening endoscopy. In this new certification system, certified screening colonoscopists are required to have performed at least 300 colonoscopies and need to receive lectures and hands-on seminars. The duration of training effectiveness is another important issue in training. As some studies on endoscopist factors associated with lesion detectability demonstrated, recent training may lead to higher lesion detectability[43,44]. Considering the continuous development of endoscopic technology, it is important even for experienced endoscopists to continue to receive training and update their knowledge and skills.

    In addition to training, monitoring and feedback of colonoscopy quality measurements are known to be helpful interventions for endoscopists to ensure the high-quality of colonoscopy[63]. Previous studies have shown that the endoscopist’s feedback is related to the improvement of ADR, and that endoscopists with a low ADR at baseline can benefit from feedback. The endoscopists’ awareness of their own colonoscopy quality is believed to lead to an improvement in colonoscopy quality. However, quality monitoring and feedback have not been widely implemented in the real world thus far. Recently, the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation Group has surveyed the real-world situation related with colonoscopy quality in Europe and reported the variation in quality and the low implementation rate of quality monitoring[64,65]. These findings indicate the necessity of promoting quality monitoring and feedback. To promote these, it is necessary to build a good endoscopy database system. In Sweden, the database of screening colonoscopy that was developed from the SCREESCO study has recently been introduced, and endoscopists can check their own important quality measurements, such as ADR. In Japan, the JGES has already started the Japan Endoscopy Database Project, which aims to build a large-scale nationwide endoscopy database that is expected to lead to the establishment of an efficient monitoring and feedback system in the future[38,66,67].

    CONCLUSION

    Experience and a sufficient number of colonoscopy procedures are required for endoscopists to perform a high-quality colonoscopy to prevent the development of CRC. Although the relationship between endoscopist specialty and colonoscopy quality is controversial, it may be possible that endoscopists of any specialty, including nurse endoscopists, can improve their colonoscopy quality regardless of specialty. Training, monitoring, and feedback of colonoscopy quality measurements are useful interventions for endoscopists to ensure high-quality procedures. Because many aspects of colonoscopy quality and endoscopist factors are not fully understood and controversial, further assessment is warranted.

    DECLARATIONS

    Acknowledgments

    We thank Editage (www.editage.com) for editing the draft of the manuscript.

    Authors’ contributions

    Design of the study and the data interpretation: Sekiguchi M, Falkén Y, Matsuda T, Saito Y, Hultcrantz R

    Drafted the article: Sekiguchi M

    Contributed to the critical revision of the article for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the article: Sekiguchi M, Falkén Y, Matsuda T, Saito Y, Hultcrantz R

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    This study was supported by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (2021-A-18).

    Conflicts of interest

    All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Copyright

    © The Author(s) 2022.

    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;71:209-49.

      DOIPubMed
    • 2. Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015;64:1637-49.

      DOIPubMed
    • 3. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:659-69.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 4. Lieberman DA. Clinical practice. Screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1179-87.

      DOIPubMed
    • 5. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, Rickert A, Hoffmeister M. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:22-30.

      DOIPubMed
    • 6. 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;329:1977-81.

      DOIPubMed
    • 7. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687-96.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 8. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365-71.

      DOIPubMed
    • 9. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 10. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jørgensen OD, Søndergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467-71.

      DOIPubMed
    • 11. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1603-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 12. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1674-80.

      DOIPubMed
    • 13. Lindholm E, Brevinge H, Haglind E. Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008;95:1029-36.

      DOIPubMed
    • 14. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:1-8.

      DOIPubMed
    • 15. Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE, Rex DK. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:770-5; quiz 711.

      DOIPubMed
    • 16. Manser CN, Bachmann LM, Brunner J, Hunold F, Bauerfeind P, Marbet UA. Colonoscopy screening markedly reduces the occurrence of colon carcinomas and carcinoma-related death: a closed cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:110-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 17. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1095-105.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 18. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut 2018;67:291-8.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 19. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, et al. COLONPREV Study Investigators. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2012;366:697-706.

      DOIPubMed
    • 20. Kaminski MF, Bretthauer M, Zauber AG, et al. The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2012;44:695-702.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 21. Saito H, Kudo SE, Takahashi N, et al. Efficacy of screening using annual fecal immunochemical test alone versus combined with one-time colonoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer mortality: the Akita Japan population-based colonoscopy screening trial (Akita pop-colon trial). Int J Colorectal Dis 2020;35:933-9.

      DOIPubMed
    • 22. Fritzell K, Forsberg A, Wangmar J, Wengström Y, Bottai M, Hultcrantz R. Gender, having a positive FIT and type of hospital are important factors for colonoscopy experience in colorectal cancer screening - findings from the SCREESCO study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020;55:1354-62.

      DOIPubMed
    • 23. Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019;156:1661-74.e11.

      DOIPubMed
    • 24. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:31-53.

      DOIPubMed
    • 25. Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016;65:1923-9.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 26. Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K, et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut 2016;65:2045-60.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 27. 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;49:378-97.

      DOIPubMed
    • 28. 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.

      DOIPubMed
    • 29. Corley DA, Levin TR, Doubeni CA. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2541.

      DOIPubMed
    • 30. 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.

      DOIPubMed
    • 31. Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J, et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program. Gastroenterology 2015;149:356-66.e1.

      DOIPubMed
    • 32. Sekiguchi M, Kakugawa Y, Matsumoto M, Matsuda T. A scoring model for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia in a screened population of asymptomatic Japanese individuals. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:1109-19.

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

      DOIPubMed
    • 34. East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut 2017;66:1181-96.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 35. Sekiguchi M, Kakugawa Y, Matsumoto M, et al. Prevalence of serrated lesions, risk factors, and their association with synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic screened individuals. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:1938-44.

      DOIPubMed
    • 36. Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 1993;25:455-61.

      DOIPubMed
    • 37. Matsuda T, Fujii T, Sano Y, et al. Randomised comparison of postpolypectomy surveillance intervals following a two-round baseline colonoscopy: the Japan Polyp Study Workgroup. Gut 2020;70:1469-78.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 38. Saito Y, Oka S, Kawamura T, et al. Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Endosc 2021;33:486-519.

      DOIPubMed
    • 39. Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012;61:1050-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 40. Kozbial K, Reinhart K, Heinze G, et al. High quality of screening colonoscopy in Austria is not dependent on endoscopist specialty or setting. Endoscopy 2015;47:207-16.

      DOIPubMed
    • 41. Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, et al. Equipe Working Group. Quality of colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2015;64:1389-96.

      DOIPubMed
    • 42. Jover R, Zapater P, Bujanda L, et al. COLONPREV Study Investigators. Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2016;48:241-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 43. Mehrotra A, Morris M, Gourevitch RA, et al. Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:778-86.e5.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 44. Crockett SD, Gourevitch RA, Morris M, et al. Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2018;50:984-92.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 45. Mandaliya R, Baig K, Barnhill M, et al. Significant variation in the detection rates of proximal serrated polyps among academic gastroenterologists, community gastroenterologists, and colorectal surgeons in a single tertiary care center. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:2614-21.

      DOIPubMed
    • 46. Sarvepalli S, Garber A, Rothberg MB, et al. Association of adenoma and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rates with endoscopist characteristics. JAMA Surg 2019;154:627-35.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 47. Muthukuru S, Alomari M, Bisen R, et al. Quality of colonoscopy: a comparison between gastroenterologists and nongastroenterologists. Dis Colon Rectum 2020;63:980-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 48. Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ, Stukel TA, Doria-Rose VP. 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.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 49. Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS, Schluchter MD, Koroukian SM. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer 2012;118:3044-52.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 50. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Kliewer EV, Mahmud SM, Bernstein CN. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1128-37.

      DOIPubMed
    • 51. Pfeifer UG, Schilling D. Non-physician endoscopy: how far can we go? Visc Med 2016;32:13-20.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 52. Maslekar S, Hughes M, Gardiner A, Monson JR, Duthie GS. Patient satisfaction with lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: doctors, nurse and nonmedical endoscopists. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:1033-8.

      DOIPubMed
    • 53. Koornstra JJ, Corporaal S, Giezen-Beintema WM, de Vries SE, van Dullemen HM. Colonoscopy training for nurse endoscopists: a feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:688-95.

      DOIPubMed
    • 54. Limoges-Gonzalez M, Mann NS, Al-Juburi A, Tseng D, Inadomi J, Rossaro L. Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterol Nurs 2011;34:210-6.

      DOIPubMed
    • 55. van Putten PG, Ter Borg F, Adang RP, et al. Nurse endoscopists perform colonoscopies according to the international standard and with high patient satisfaction. Endoscopy 2012;44:1127-32.

      DOIPubMed
    • 56. Massl R, van Putten PG, Steyerberg EW, et al. Comparing quality, safety, and costs of colonoscopies performed by nurse vs physician trainees. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:470-7.

      DOIPubMed
    • 57. Hui AJ, Lau JY, Lam PP, et al. Comparison of colonoscopic performance between medical and nurse endoscopists: a non-inferiority randomised controlled study in Asia. Gut 2015;64:1058-62.

      DOIPubMed
    • 58. Riegert M, Nandwani M, Thul B, et al. Experience of nurse practitioners performing colonoscopy after endoscopic training in more than 1,000 patients. Endosc Int Open 2020;8:E1423-8.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 59. Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:219-26; quiz 227.

      DOIPubMed
    • 60. 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.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 61. Wallace MB, Crook JE, Thomas CS, Staggs E, Parker L, Rex DK. Effect of an endoscopic quality improvement program on adenoma detection rates: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial in a clinical practice setting (EQUIP-3). Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:538-45.e4.

      DOIPubMed
    • 62. Lim S, Hammond S, Park J, et al. Training interventions to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3870-82.

      DOIPubMed
    • 63. Bishay K, Causada-Calo N, Scaffidi MA, et al. Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:1030-40.e9.

      DOIPubMed
    • 64. Spada C, Koulaouzidis A, Hassan C, et al. Colonoscopy quality across Europe: a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group. Endosc Int Open 2021;9:E1456-62.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 65. Spada C, Koulaouzidis A, Hassan C, et al. Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022;12:503.

      DOIPubMed PMC
    • 66. Matsuda K, Tanaka K, Fujishiro M, et al. Design paper: Japan Endoscopy Database (JED): a prospective, large database project related to gastroenterological endoscopy in Japan. Dig Endosc 2018;30:5-19.

      DOIPubMed
    • 67. Saito Y, Kodashima S, Matsuda T, et al. Current status of diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in Japan: the Japan Endoscopic Database Project. Dig Endosc 2022;34:144-52.

      DOIPubMed

    Cite This Article

    Sekiguchi M, Falkén Y, Matsuda T, Saito Y, Hultcrantz R. Colonoscopy quality and endoscopist factors: what are the required endoscopist conditions for high-quality colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality?. Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:25. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.146

    Views
    183
    Downloads
    49
    Citations
     0
    Comments
    0

    3

    Comments

    Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.

    Article Access Statistics

    • Viewed: 183
    • Downloaded: 49
    • Cited: Crossref0

    Share This Article

    See Updates

    © 2016-2022 OAE Publishing Inc., except certain content provided by third parties