Reliability of Japan Narrow-Band Imaging Expert Team Classification for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Neoplasms: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Magnifying narrow-band imaging (NBI) is a beneficial modality for the prediction of histology in colonoscopy. The Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification has been established based on the results of online surveys of the diagnostic accuracy of histological features. However, the reliability of the JNET classification has not been examined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of interobserver agreement for JNET classification among endoscopists when evaluating colonic lesions. METHODS: We analyzed a total of 246 colonic lesions in this interpretation test. Each lesion image was subsequently reviewed by 3 experienced endoscopists and then classified based on 4 established JNET categories and indeterminate categories between fixed categories. The primary endpoint was the interobserver agreement rate for evaluation of endoscopic findings using the JNET classification. RESULTS: The complete concordance (defined as 3 out of 3 observer agreement) rate was 73% (179/246), while the partial concordance (defined as 2 out of 3 observer agreement) rate was 26% (64/246). Therefore, concordance of at least 2 out of 3 was achieved in 99% of all the lesions and disagreement of the 3 endoscopists was found in only 1% (3/246). Fleiss's kappa coefficient (κ) was 0.72 for all cases, which represents moderate interobserver agreement for observers. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the reliability of the JNET classification for colonic neoplastic lesions among experienced endoscopists and demonstrates acceptable interobserver agreement. Further studies validating the clinical applicability of JNET classification are required among endoscopists with a variety of expertise in several clinical settings.

Evaluation of the implementation of Galician Health Service indications and priority levels for colonoscopy in symptomatic patients: prospective, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: the Galician Health Service established indications and priority levels (I = fast track, II = preferential, III = normal) for colonoscopy, according to the risk of colorectal cancer and significant colonic lesions detection with access from primary health care. Our aim is to show the results of the implementation. METHODS: we included colonoscopies requested in symptomatic patients from June to October 2012 in a prospective observational cross sectional study. We collected health care level (primary, secondary), priority, appropriateness to the established criteria, wait times (from colonoscopy application and initial consultation) and diagnostic yield for colorectal cancer and/or significant colonic lesion. We compared health care levels in priorities I and II. RESULTS: 425 colonoscopies were included (I = 221, II = 141, III = 63). The appropriateness rate to the protocol was 67.5 %. Priority levels were significantly associated to wait times (days) from application (I = 8.7 ± 8.9, II = 50 + or - 20.3, III = 80.2 + or - 32.2; p < 0.001) and initial consultation (I = 32.2 + or - 38, II = 74.5 + or - 44.2, III = 128.5 + or - 47.4; p < 0.001), and with colorectal cancer (I = 20.1 %, II = 19.1 %, III = 4.8 %, p < 0.001) and significant colonic lesion (I = 35.3 %, II = 34 %, III = 19 %, p = 0.002) detection rates. In priority I and II, 21.8 % of colonoscopies were requested from primary health care. Referral form primary health care reduced wait times from initial consultation to colonoscopy (primary = 29.3 + or - 26, secondary = 55.2 + or - 48.6, p < 0.001). Instead, colorectal cancer (OR 2.41, 95 % CI 1.31-4.42) and significant colonic lesion (OR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.13- 3.15) detection rate was increased. CONCLUSIONS: Galician Health Service priority levels are significantly associated with colorectal cancer and significant colonic lesion detection. Referrals to colonoscopy from primary health care reduce waiting times and increase diagnostic yield.

Qualitative study of physician perspectives on classifying screening and nonscreening colonoscopy using administrative health data: adding practice does not make perfect.

BACKGROUND: Previously developed screening colonoscopy algorithms based on diagnostic and endoscopy procedural variables have not been sufficiently accurate for use in epidemiological and health services research. OBJECTIVE: To increase understanding of the administrative health database variables that could help to discern screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. METHODS: A qualitative study using physician focus groups was conducted in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Toronto (Ontario). Specialty-specific focus group sessions were held among family physicians and gastroenterologists - the physicians responsible for referring patients to and performing screening colonoscopy, respectively. Interview guides were developed to better understand physician clinical and billing practices. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Forty family physicians and seven gastroenterologists participated in five focus group sessions. Patient variables included demographics (age) and medical history (colorectal cancer risk factors/symptoms, medication for colorectal cancer risk factors/symptoms, gastrointestinal disorders, severe disease). Clinical practice variables included timing of the colonoscopy (evenings, weekends, holidays, during hospitalization; same-day endoscopist consultation and colonoscopy), use of services (hospitalization, annual examination, transfer from other facility) and procedure use patterns (large bowel or other medical/surgical procedure before and subsequent to colonoscopy). However, wide variability in clinical and billing practices will likely preclude the development of a reasonably accurate screening colonoscopy algorithm. Physicians suggested adding a screening colonoscopy code to the administrative health data. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to acknowledge the limitations of the provincial administrative health databases to identify screening colonoscopy may lead to incorrect conclusions and the establishment of inappropriate health care policies.

Preparación para colonoscopia: tipos de productos y escalas de limpieza / Preparation for colonoscopy: types of scales and cleaning products

Una adecuada preparación del colon es fundamental antes de realizar una colonoscopia, ya que nos permite realizar una correcta exploración de toda la mucosa. El método ideal de limpieza del colon debe ser rápido, seguro y conseguir una limpieza apropiada con las mínimas molestias para el paciente. En la actualidad disponemos de una amplia variedad de productos de limpieza de colon, información que en ocasiones llega a ser confusa. Una buena preparación del colon depende por una parte de una correcta elección del mismo, pero también de una restricción dietética previa. El conocimiento de todos estos productos, con sus ventajas y limitaciones, nos permite hacer una mejor selección para cada paciente; y aunque la eficacia sea comparable, es la experiencia del explorador, las preferencias del paciente y el grado de cumplimiento de las instrucciones de preparación, las que influyen notablemente en los resultados(AU)

Adequate bowel preparation is essential before a colonoscopy, allowing us to make a proper examination of the entire mucosa. The ideal method of colon cleansing should be fast, safe, and get a proper cleaning with minimal discomfort for the patient. Today we have a wide variety of colon cleansing products, information sometimes becomes confused. A good colon preparation depends partly on correct choice of the same, but also upon dietary restriction. Knowledge of all these products, with their advantages and limitations, we can make a better selection for each patient, and although the efficacy is comparable, is the experience of the browser, patient preferences, and the degree of compliance with the instructions preparation, which greatly influence the results(AU)

[Alternatives to colonoscopy and their limitations]. / Alternatives à la coloscopie et leurs limites.

Conventional optical colonoscopy is the reference examination for exploration of the colon. Its morbidity and its poor acceptability have led to the development of alternative techniques. Considerable work has gone into colon imaging, in particular computed tomography (colo-TC). According to the meta-analysis by Mulhall et al, its sensitivity is 85% and its specificity 97% for the detection of polyps>9 mm. A colo-TC is the alternative examination with the best recognized performance. Among the examinations described below, it is the only examination that can be proposed in the case of the failure of or contraindication to optical colonoscopy. Because of the irradiating nature of this technique, magnetic resonance imaging would be preferable if feasible. This technique has appeared more recently, and work on the topic is less abundant. Capsule endoscopy (the Pill-cam) for the small intestine has been adapted to study of the colon. Results of colon capsule endoscopy studies are promising. A European multicenter study of 320 patients found a sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 60% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86% for the detection of polyps>6mm. No severe complication was observed. Finally, improvements have been sought for standard colonoscopy: the Aer-O-Scope, Invendoscope, CathCam colonoscopy - all of these alternative colonoscopies are only in their infancy. The characteristics of these methods for exploring the colon vary substantially between techniques, and their respective roles and indications remain to be defined.

A survey of individual preference for colorectal cancer screening technique.

BACKGROUND: Due to the low participation in colorectal cancer screening, public preference for colorectal cancer screening modality was determined. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed of healthy ambulatory adults in a pediatrics primary care office and neighboring church. Overall preference was ranked for each of four colorectal cancer screening modalities: Faecal Occult Blood, Fiberoptic Sigmoidoscopy, Barium Enema and Colonoscopy. Four additional domains of preference also were ranked: suspected discomfort, embarrassment, inconvenience and danger of each exam. RESULTS: 80 surveys were analyzed, 57 of which were received from participants who had experienced none of the screening tests. Fecal Occult Blood Testing is significantly preferred over each other screening modality in overall preference and every domain of preference, among all subjects and those who had experienced none of the tests. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase public participation in colorectal cancer screening may be more effective if undertaken in the context of public perceptions of screening choices.