Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines for an Optimum Screening Colonoscopy

  • Prevention and Early Detection (N Arber, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Effective colonoscopy requires a high rate of excellent and good bowel preparations, which can be achieved by split dose or same day dosing. Cecal intubation rates in screening patients should exceed 95%, and experts frequently achieve 99% or more. Cecal intubation should be documented by photographs of the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve and notation of landmark visualization. Withdrawal technique must include meticulous inspection of the proximal sides of the folds, clean-up of residual fluid and feces, adequate luminal distension, and adequate withdrawal time. The endoscopist must be familiar with the full spectrum of endoscopic lesions, including flat and depressed lesions and serrated lesions. Optimal screening colonoscopy includes documentation of high quality by adequate adenoma detection rates, cecal intubation rates, and use of appropriate surveillance intervals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Riemann JF. Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: compliance and the choice of test. Endoscopy. 2010;42(7):576–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(1):96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD, et al.: Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures asociated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72. Doctors with higher polypectomy rates and higher cecal intubation rates during colonoscopy achieved better protection against right-sided colon cancer compared to those who did not.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R: Endoscopist specialty is associated with incident colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(3):275–9. On average, gastroenterologists miss fewer colorectal cancers than non-gastroenterologists.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, Ransohoff DF. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):264–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J, et al. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(9):654–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harewood GC. Relationship of colonoscopy completion rates and endoscopist features. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(1):47–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C, et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(24):2533–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(2):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, et al.: Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jan;9(1):42–6. Among a group of academic gastroenterologists, the prevalence of serrated lesions proximal to the sigmoid colon varied 18-fold.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. • Hetzel J, 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;105:2656–64. This is the first study to identify variable detection of serrated lesions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta R, Brownlow B, Domnick R, et al. Colon cancer not prevented by colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:S551–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1207–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(1):76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(3):378–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25(4):373–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A, et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(38):6161–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, et al. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA. 2006;295(20):2366–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(1):1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al.: Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case–control study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 4;154(1):22–30. A German study showing a 56% reduction in proximal colon cancer mortality from colonoscopy, and 84% in the left colon.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, et al. Colorectal cancers after a negative colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:A149.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Frommer D. Cleansing ability and tolerance of three bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(1):100–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gupta T, Mandot A, Desai D, et al. Comparison of two schedules (previous evening versus same morning) of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2007;39(8):706–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdul-Baki H, Hashash JG, Elhajj II, et al. A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of the adjunct use of tegaserod in whole-dose or split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(2):294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park JS, Sohn CI, Hwang SJ, et al. Quality and effect of single dose versus split dose of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for early-morning colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2007;39(7):616–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. El Sayed AM, Kanafani ZA, Mourad FH, et al. A randomized single-blind trial of whole versus split-dose polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(1):36–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park SS, Sinn DH, Kim YH, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose magnesium citrate: low-volume (2 liters) polyethylene glycol vs single- or split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for morning colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(6):1319–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM, et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1240–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters. Anesthesiology. 2011;114(3):495–511.

  32. Huffman M, Unger RZ, Thatikonda C, et al. Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and residual gastric fluid volume: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(3):516–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Unger RZ, Amstutz SP, da Seo H, et al. Willingness to undergo split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and compliance with split-dose instructions. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(7):2030–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Khan MA, Piotrowski Z, Brown MD. Patient acceptance, convenience, and efficacy of single-dose versus split-dose colonoscopy bowel preparation. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44(4):310–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gurudu SR, Ratuapli S, Heigh R, et al. Quality of bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopy is influenced by time of administration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(11):2318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Varughese S, Kumar AR, George A, Castro FJ. Morning-only one-gallon polyethylene glycol improves bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopies: a randomized endoscopist-blinded prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(11):2368–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Chiu HM, Lin JT, Wang HP, et al. The impact of colon preparation timing on colonoscopic detection of colorectal neoplasms–a prospective endoscopist-blinded randomized trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(12):2719–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Soweid AM, Kobeissy AA, Jamali FR, et al. A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy. 2010;42(8):633–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Delegge M, Kaplan R. Efficacy of bowel preparation with the use of a prepackaged, low fibre diet with a low sodium, magnesium citrate cathartic vs. a clear liquid diet with a standard sodium phosphate cathartic. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(12):1491–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. DiPalma JA, Wolff BG, Meagher A, Cleveland M. Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(10):2187–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hjelkrem M, Stengel J, Liu M, et al.: MiraLAX is not as effective as GoLytely in bowel cleansing before screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(4):326–32 e1.

    Google Scholar 

  42. DiPalma JA, Rodriguez R, McGowan J, Cleveland MB. A randomized clinical study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new, reduced-volume, oral sulfate colon-cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(9):2275–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rex DK, Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):328–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rex DK, Khalfan HK. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;15(4):661–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rex D, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1229–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, et al. AGA institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(2):675–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Byrne MF, Chiba N, Singh H, Sadowski DC. Propofol use for sedation during endoscopy in adults: a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position statement. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008;22(5):457–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Knape JT, Adriaensen H, van Aken H, et al. Guidelines for sedation and/or analgesia by non-anaesthesiology doctors. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24(7):563–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Weber B, et al. S3-guidelines–sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Z Gastroenterol. 2008;46(11):1298–330.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Heuss LT, Peter S: Propofol use by gastroenterologists-the European experience. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18(4):727–38, ix.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Riphaus A, Rabofski M, Wehrmann T. Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice in Germany: results from the first nationwide survey. Z Gastroenterol. 2010;48(3):392–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Leung FW, Harker JO, Jackson G, et al. A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):693–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Leung CW, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R, et al. Water immersion versus standard colonoscopy insertion technique: randomized trial shows promise for minimal sedation. Endoscopy. 2010;42(7):557–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Friedland S. The water immersion technique for colonoscopy insertion. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2010;6(9):555–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rao KV, Beri GD, Sterling MJ, Salen G. Splenic injury as a complication of colonoscopy: a case series. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1604–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(4):873–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rex DK. Still photography versus videotaping for documentation of cecal intubation: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51(4 Pt 1):451–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51(1):33–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. • Rex DK, Hewett DG, Raghavendra M, Chalasani N: The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov;105(11):2312–7. Video recording resulted in improved performance of colonoscopy withdrawal.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR, et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(1):128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH, et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24(6):965–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 min on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(6):1892–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR, et al. Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kaneshiro M, Ho A, Chan M, et al. Colonoscopy yields fewer polyps as the day progresses despite using social influence theory to reverse the trend. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(6):1233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lee A, Iskander JM, Gupta N, et al. Queue position in the endoscopic schedule impacts effectiveness of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(8):1457–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, et al. Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(7):1659–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ollington K, Brelian D, Share EJ, et al.: Does time of the day affect polyp or adenoma detection during colonoscopy at a private outpatient endoscopy center? Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:AB247.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Munson GW, Harewood GC, Francis DL. Time of day variation in polyp detection rate for colonoscopies performed on a 3-hour shift schedule. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(3):467–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gurudu SR, Ratuapli SK, Leighton JA, et al. Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by the timing of colonoscopy when performed in half-day blocks. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(8):1466–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(10):1091–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH, et al. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(12):1335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Waye JD, Heigh RI, Fleischer DE, et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(3):551–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y. Improved colorectal adenoma detection with a transparent retractable extension device. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(2):341–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(3):480–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Dai J, Feng N, Lu H, et al. Transparent cap improves patients’ tolerance of colonoscopy and shortens examination time by inexperienced endoscopists. J Dig Dis. 2010;11(6):364–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):775–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kato N, et al. Hood-assisted colonoscopy is more effective in detection of colorectal adenomas than narrow-band imaging. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(4):379–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lee YT, Lai LH, Hui AJ, et al. Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with regular colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(1):41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Adler A, Pohl H, Papanikolaou IS, et al. A prospective randomised study on narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection: does narrow-band imaging induce a learning effect? Gut. 2008;57(1):59–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Paggi S, Radaelli F, Amato A, et al. The impact of narrow band imaging in screening colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(10):1049–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T, et al. Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(2):410–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kaltenbach T, Friedland S, Soetikno R. A randomised tandem colonoscopy trial of narrow band imaging versus white light examination to compare neoplasia miss rates. Gut. 2008;57(10):1406–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Rex DK, Helbig CC. High yields of small and flat adenomas with high-definition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(1):42–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. East JE, Suzuki N, Stavrinidis M, et al. Narrow band imaging for colonoscopic surveillance in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Gut. 2008;57(1):65–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Aminalai A, Rosch T, Aschenbeck J, et al. Live image processing does not increase adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison between FICE and conventional imaging (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 5, BECOP-5). Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(11):2383–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Chung SJ, Kim D, Song JH, et al. Efficacy of computed virtual chromoendoscopy on colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, back-to-back trial of Fuji Intelligent Color Enhancement versus conventional colonoscopy to compare adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(1):136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cha JM, Lee JI, Joo KR, et al. A prospective randomized study on computed virtual chromoendoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of small colorectal adenomas. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(8):2357–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hoffman A, Sar F, Goetz M, et al. High definition colonoscopy combined with i-Scan is superior in the detection of colorectal neoplasias compared with standard video colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2010;42(10):827–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Pohl J, Schneider A, Vogell H, et al. Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut. 2011;60(4):485–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Matsuda T, Saito Y, Fu KI, et al. Does autofluorescence imaging videoendoscopy system improve the colonoscopic polyp detection rate?–a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(8):1926–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Inoue K, Wakabayashi N, Morimoto Y, et al. Evaluation of autofluorescence colonoscopy for diagnosis of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25(7):811–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Almansa C, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, et al. Association between visual gaze patterns and adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a preliminary investigation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(6):1070–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(6 Suppl)(6):S3-S43.

  94. Spring KJ, Zhao ZZ, Karamatic R, et al. High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas with BRAF mutations: a prospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(5):1400–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2006;38(7):787–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Agrawal S, Bhupinderjit A, Bhutani MS, et al. Colorectal cancer in African Americans. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(3):515–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Vasen HF, Moslein G, Alonso A, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut. 2008;57(5):704–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Chow E, Lipton L, Lynch E, et al. Hyperplastic polyposis syndrome: phenotypic presentations and the role of MBD4 and MYH. Gastroenterology. 2006;131(1):30–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(6):1872–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(6):1865–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Goodwin JS, Singh A, Reddy N, et al.: Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy in the Medicare Population. Arch Intern Med. published online 5-9-2011. doi:10.1001/Arch Intern Med .20011.212 May 9.

  102. •• Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al.: Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795–803. Patients of doctors with adenoma detection rates <20% had a 10-fold increased risk of developing colorectal cancer before their next scheduled colonoscopy, compared to patients of doctors with adenoma detection rates above the recommended threshold of 20% for evenly mixed male/female patient population.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(6):1296–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Rex DK. Quality in colonoscopy: cecal intubation first, then what? Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(4):732–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Improving colonoscopy quality through health-care payment reform. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(9):1925–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

K. C. Vemulapalli: none; D. K. Rex: board membership for Given Imaging, American BioOptics, CheckCap, Epigenomics, and Exact Sciences, and educational presentations/speakers’ bureaus for Olympus, Braintree, and Boston Scientific.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Krishna C. Vemulapalli

  2. Indiana University Hospital, #4100 550 N. University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Douglas K. Rex

Authors
  1. Krishna C. Vemulapalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas K. Rex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas K. Rex.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vemulapalli, K.C., Rex, D.K. Guidelines for an Optimum Screening Colonoscopy. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 8, 6–15 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-011-0109-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-011-0109-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation