Advances in endoscopic dysplasia detection in inflammatory bowel disease

Table 8 Practice pattern and quality of care in dysplasia surveillance

Ref.	Study type	Sample size	Key findings
Vienne et al[44], 2011	Survey (France, CESAME cohort)	583 patients	Only 54% of eligible IBD patients received surveillance colonoscopy; large inter-center variability (27%-70%) and low uptake in Crohn’s colitis. Chromoendoscopy was used in 30%, and random biopsies in 71%
Lewis et al[45], 2022	Survey of high-volume IBD providers (United States)	55 providers	Wide variation in practice: 20% regularly used DCE, 27% VCE, 58% random biopsies; random biopsy use is inversely related to DCE use; less than half believed random biopsies increased detection with HD-WLE
Te Groen M et al[46], 2024	Multicenter retrospective audit (Netherlands)	644 colonoscopies from 391 IBD patients	Major guideline deviations: Inadequate withdrawal time (52%), lack of inspection of prior dysplasia sites (68%), and suboptimal documentation; only 10.6% received surveillance consistent with guideline-defined high-quality colonoscopy

IBD: Inflammatory bowel disease; CESAME: Cohorte Epidémiologique Sur les Maladies de l’Appareil Digestif; DCE: Dye-based chromoendoscopy; VCE: Virtual chromoendoscopy; HD-WLE: High definition white light endoscopy.