Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

01-03-2018

Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

Authors: Brent Murchie, Kanwarpreet Tandon, Shamiq Zackria, Steven D. Wexner, Colin O’Rourke, Fernando J. Castro

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2018

Abstract

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.

Methods

In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.

Results

2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77–1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64–1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69–1.33).

Conclusions

Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.

Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A (2014) Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64:9–29CrossRefPubMed

Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypec- tomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366:687–696CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Baxter NN et al (2009) Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 150(1):1–8CrossRefPubMed

Ransohoff DF (2009) How much does colonoscopy reduce colon cancer mortality? Ann Intern Med 150(1):50–52CrossRefPubMed

Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al (2004) Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 141:352–359CrossRefPubMed

Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonog- raphy compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colo- rectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127:41–48CrossRefPubMed

Rex DK et al (2014) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 81(1):31–53

Chen SC, Rex DK (2007) Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 102(4):856–861CrossRefPubMed

Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al (2010) Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 362:1795–1803CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rex DK et al (2002) 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 97(6):1296–1308CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kahi CJ et al (2013) Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 77(6):925–931CrossRefPubMed

12.

Keswani RN et al (2015) Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 110(8):1134CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ussui V et al (2015) Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol 110(4):489–496CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sawhney MS et al (2008) Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥ 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 135(6):1892–1898CrossRefPubMed

15.

Shaukat A et al (2009) Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(12):1335–1340CrossRefPubMed

16.

Francis DL et al (2011) Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 73(3):493–497CrossRefPubMed

17.

Boroff ES et al (2013) Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 108(6):993–999CrossRefPubMed

18.

Elhanafi Sherif et al (2014) Estimation of the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate by using a conversion factor in a predominantly Hispanic population. J Clin Gastroenterol 49(7):589–593CrossRef

19.

Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G (2000) A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 52:346–352CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rostom A, Jolicoeur E (2004) Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 59:482–486CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al (2009) American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol 104:739–750 [corrected] CrossRefPubMed

22.

Carpenter B et al (2016) Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J Stat Softw 20:1–37

23.

Thoma MN et al (2013) Comparison of adenoma detection rate in Hispanics and whites undergoing first screening colonoscopy: a retrospective chart review. Gastrointest Endosc 77(3):430–435CrossRefPubMed

Title: Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?
Authors: Brent Murchie
Kanwarpreet Tandon
Shamiq Zackria
Steven D. Wexner
Colin O’Rourke
Fernando J. Castro
Publication date: 01-03-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5785-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Inflammatory response and peritoneal contamination after transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) versus mini-laparotomy: a porcine in vivo study

Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Impact of visual–spatial ability on laparoscopic camera navigation training

St.Gallen consensus on safe implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision

Transanal versus abdominal low rectal dissection for rectal cancer: long-term results of the Bordeaux’ randomized trial

Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): mid-term efficacy and safety