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

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.

• References

• 1 Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology 2007; 50: 113-130
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 13 IJspeert JEG. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: the missing link. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 442-443
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 21 Sealed Envelope Ltd.. Create a blocked randomisation list. 2022 Accessed January 17, 2024 at: https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists
• 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
• 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
• 24 Fry DE. The Hawthorne effect revisited. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61: 6-7
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 30 Crockett SD, Gourevitch RA, Morris M. et al. Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 984-992
• 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