Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Endoscopy 2024; 56(06): 412-420
DOI: 10.1055/a-2240-7823
Original article

Effect of an E-learning resource on endoscopists’ proximal serrated polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial

David E. F. W. M. van Toledo
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
3   Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Joep E. G. IJspeert
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
3   Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
4   Department of Gastroenterology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Arne G. C. Bleijenberg
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
3   Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Anne Depla
5   Department of Gastroenterology, DC Klinieken, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Nahid S. M. Montazeri
6   Biostatistics Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Evelien Dekker 
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
3   Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Clinical Trial: Registration number (trial ID): NL8385, Trial registry: Netherlands National Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl), Type of Study: Randomized controlled multicenter study
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Author commentary on David E. F.W. M. van Toledo et al.Endoscopy 2024; 56(06): v8-v8
DOI: 10.1055/a-2266-3905

Abstract

Background Recent studies demonstrated that a higher proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) among endoscopists is associated with a lower risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence and death for their patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of an e-learning resource on PSPDR.

Methods We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial within the Dutch fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopists were randomized using block randomization per center to either receive a 60-minute e-learning resource on serrated polyp detection or not. PSPDR was calculated based on all colonoscopies performed during a 27-month pre-intervention and a 17-month post-intervention period. The primary end point was difference in PSPDR between intervention and control arms (intention to treat) using mixed effect logistic regression modeling, with time (pre-intervention/post-intervention) and interaction between time and arm (intervention/control) as fixed effects, and endoscopists as random effects.

Results 116 endoscopists (57 intervention, 59 controls) were included, and performed 27494 and 33888 colonoscopies, respectively. Median PSPDR pre-intervention was 13.6% (95%CI 13.0–14.1) in the intervention arm and 13.8% (95%CI 13.3–14.3) in controls. Post-intervention PSPDR was significantly higher over time in the intervention arm than in controls (17.1% vs. 15.4%, P=0.01).

Conclusion In an era of increased awareness and increasing PSPDRs, endoscopists who undertook a one-time e-learning course significantly accelerated the increase in PSPDR compared with endoscopists who did not undertake the e-learning. Widespread implementation might reduce PCCRC incidence.

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 May 2023

Accepted after revision: 06 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 January 2024

Article published online:
21 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology 2007; 50: 113-130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 van Toledo DEFWM, IJspeert JEG, Dekker E. Current approaches in managing colonic serrated polyps and serrated polyposis. Annu Rev Med 2022; 73: 293-306
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 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: 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 IJspeert JEG, van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM. et al. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 870-877
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925.e903
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299.e1282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Leung LJ, Lee JK, Merchant SA. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer etiologies in a large integrated United States health care setting. Gastroenterology 2023; 164: 470-472.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S. et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TM. et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 950-960
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bettington M, Walker N, Rosty C. et al. Clinicopathological and molecular features of sessile serrated adenomas with dysplasia or carcinoma. Gut 2017; 66: 97-106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Vennelaganti S, Cuatrecasas M, Vennalaganti P. et al. Interobserver agreement among pathologists in the differentiation of sessile serrated from hyperplastic polyps. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 452-454.e451
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 IJspeert JEG. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: the missing link. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 442-443
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 van Toledo D, IJspeert JEG, Bossuyt PMM. et al. Serrated polyp detection and risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7: 747-754
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Zessner-Spitzenberg J, Waldmann E, Jiricka L. et al. Comparison of adenoma detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate and their effect on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality in screening patients. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 434-441
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Bleijenberg AGC, van Leerdam ME, Bargeman M. et al. Substantial and sustained improvement of serrated polyp detection after a simple educational intervention: results from a prospective controlled trial. Gut 2020; 69: 2150-2158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hassan C, Repici A, Rizkala T. et al. Could the sessile serrated lesion detection rate become an ESGE quality parameter?. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E105-e106
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 726-732
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bronzwaer MES, Depla A, van Lelyveld N. et al. Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 van Toledo DEFWM, Breekveldt ECH, IJspeert JEG. et al. Advanced serrated polyps as target of screening: detection rate and positive predictive value within a fecal immunochemical test based colorectal cancer screening population. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 526-534
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Sealed Envelope Ltd.. Create a blocked randomisation list. 2022 Accessed January 17, 2024 at: https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 IJspeert JEG, Bastiaansen BAJ, van Leerdam ME. et al. Development and validation of the WASP classification system for optical diagnosis of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Gut 2016; 65: 963-970
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Shaukat A, Rex DK, Shyne M. et al. Effect of a polyp detection poster on detection of sessile serrated lesions: a prospective controlled study. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10: E534-e538
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Fry DE. The Hawthorne effect revisited. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61: 6-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA. et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2656-2664
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Li D, Woolfrey J, Jiang SF. et al. Diagnosis and predictors of sessile serrated adenoma after educational training in a large, community-based, integrated healthcare setting. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 755-765.e751
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lee CK, Kim YW, Shim JJ. et al. Prevalence of proximal serrated polyps and conventional adenomas in an asymptomatic average-risk screening population. Gut Liver 2013; 7: 524-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE. et al. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1188-1194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 IJspeert JEG, Bevan R, Senore C. et al. Detection rate of serrated polyps and serrated polyposis syndrome in colorectal cancer screening cohorts: a European overview. Gut 2017; 66: 1225-1232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Crockett SD, Gourevitch RA, Morris M. et al. Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 984-992
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Meester RGS, van Herk M, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. et al. Prevalence and clinical features of sessile serrated polyps: a systematic review. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 105-118.e125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar