Background Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-established quality indicator for colonoscopy and is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.... Show moreBackground Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-established quality indicator for colonoscopy and is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers frequently develop from serrated polyps, which are not included in the ADR. Therefore, the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) has been proposed as a quality indicator, but its association with interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer has not been studied. We aimed to evaluate this potential association based on data collected in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme. Methods In this population-based study, using colonoscopy data from the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programme and cancer data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we evaluated the association between endoscopists' individual PSPDR and their patients' risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer with a shared frailty Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis. Participants in the screening programme who were eligible for inclusion were aged 55-76 years, had a positive faecal immunochemical test (cutoff 15 mu g Hb/g faeces at start and changed mid-2014 to 47 mu g Hb/g faeces), were asymptomatic, and underwent a colonoscopy between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2020. The PSPDR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies in which at least one serrated polyp proximal to the descending colon was detected, confirmed by histopathology. The ADR was defined as the proportion of all colonoscopies in which at least one conventional adenoma was detected, confirmed by histopathology. Detection rates were determined for each endoscopist individually. We additionally evaluated the risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a PSPDR and ADR above the median versus endoscopists with either one or both parameters below the median. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8350. Findings During the study period, 329 104 colonoscopies were done, of which 277 555, done by 441 endoscopists, were included in the PSPDR calculations. The median PSPDR was 11.9% (IQR 8.3-15.8) and median ADR was 66.3% (61.4-69.9). The correlation between the PSDPR and ADR was moderate (r=0.59; p < 0middot0001). During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 21-42), 305 interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers were detected. For each percentage point increase in PSPDR, the adjusted interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer hazard was 7% lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95; p < 0middot0001). Compared with endoscopists with a PSPDR greater than 11middot9% and ADR greater than 66middot3%, the HR of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and high ADR was 1.79 (95% CI 1.22-2.63), for endoscopists with a high PSPDR and low ADR was 1.97 (1.19-3.24), and for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and low ADR was 2.55 (1.89-3.45). Gastroenterology, (Prof Gastroenterology the (Prof Interpretation The PSPDR of an endoscopist is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Implementation of PSPDR monitoring, in addition to ADR monitoring, could optimise colorectal cancer prevention. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Background: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection ... Show moreBackground: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC Methods: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. Results: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. Conclusions: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes. Show less
Background Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection ... Show moreBackground Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results.Methods Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes.Results We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %–90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %–89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %–65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %–33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %–70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection.Conclusions eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes. Show less
Nass, K.J.; Vlugt, M. van der; Elfrink, A.K.E.; Brand, C.L. van den; Wilschut, J.A.; Fockens, P.; ... ; Collaboration Dutch Gastrointestin 2021
Background Nonmodifiable patient and endoscopy characteristics might influence colonoscopy performance. Differences in these so-called case-mix factors are likely to exist between endoscopy centers... Show moreBackground Nonmodifiable patient and endoscopy characteristics might influence colonoscopy performance. Differences in these so-called case-mix factors are likely to exist between endoscopy centers. This study aimed to examine the importance of case-mix adjustment when comparing performance between endoscopy centers.Methods Prospectively collected data recorded in the Dutch national colonoscopy registry between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adequate bowel preparation rate (ABPR) were analyzed. Additionally, polyp detection rate (PDR) was studied in screening colonoscopies following a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Variation in case-mix factors between endoscopy centers and expected outcomes for each performance measure were calculated per endoscopy center based on case-mix factors (sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist [ASA] score, indication) using multivariable logistic regression.Results 363840 colonoscopies were included from 51 endoscopy centers. Mean percentages per endoscopy center were significantly different for age >65 years, male patients, ASA >= III, and diagnostic colonoscopies (all P <0.001). In the FIT-positive screening population, significant differences were observed between endoscopy centers for age >65 years, male patients, and ASA >= III (all P <= 0.001). The expected CIR, ABPR, and PDR ranged from 95.0% to 96.9%, from 93.6% to 96.4%, and from 76.2% to 79.1%, respectively. Age, sex, ASA classification, and indication were significant case-mix factors for CIR and ABPR. In the FIT-positive screening population, age, sex, and ASA classification were significant case-mix factors for PDR.Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of considering case-mix adjustment when comparing colonoscopy performance measures between endoscopy centers. Show less
Nass, K.J.; Schaar, P.J. van der; Vlugt, M. van der; Ledeboer, M.; Esch, A.A.J. van; Beek, S. van der; ... ; Dekker, E. 2021
Background To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study... Show moreBackground To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication.Methods This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service.Results During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %.Conclusion This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines. Show less
Vlugt, M. van der; Doorn, S.C. van; Wang, J.F.; Bastiaansen, B.A.J.; Brosens, L.A.A.; Fockens, P.; Dekker, E. 2016
