Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry
- PMID: 23660415
- PMCID: PMC3841980
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.042
Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry
Abstract
Background & aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator originally developed for screening colonoscopies. However, it is unclear whether the ADR should be calculated using data from screening and surveillance examinations. The recommended benchmark ADR for screening examinations is 20% (15% for women and 25% for men ≥50 y). There are few data available to compare ADRs from surveillance vs screening colonoscopies. We used a population-based registry to compare ADRs from screening vs surveillance colonoscopies. The serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), a potential new quality indicator, also was examined.
Methods: By using data from the statewide New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, we excluded incomplete and diagnostic colonoscopies, and those performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, familial syndromes, or poor bowel preparation. We calculated the ADR and SDR (number of colonoscopies with at least 1 adenoma or serrated polyp detected, respectively, divided by the number of colonoscopies) from 9100 colonoscopies. The ADR and SDR were compared by colonoscopy indication (screening, surveillance), age at colonoscopy (50-64 y, ≥65 y), and sex.
Results: The ADR was significantly higher in surveillance colonoscopies (37%) than screening colonoscopies (25%; P < .001). This difference was observed for both sexes and age groups. There was a smaller difference in the SDR of screening (8%) vs surveillance colonoscopies (10%; P < .001).
Conclusions: In a population-based study, we found that addition of data from surveillance colonoscopies increased the ADR but had a smaller effect on the SDR. These findings indicate that when calculating ADR as a quality measure, endoscopists should use screening, rather than surveillance colonoscopy, data.
Keywords: ADR; CI; CRC; Colon Cancer; Early Detection; Endoscopy; NHCR; New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry; SDR; Tumor; adenoma detection rate; colorectal cancer; confidence interval; serrated polyp detection rate.
Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
References
-
- 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 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–1308. - PubMed
-
- Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA, et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:757–766. - PubMed
-
- Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:873–885. - PubMed
-
- Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2061–2068. - PubMed
-
- Rogge JD, Elmore MF, Mahoney SJ, et al. Low-cost, office-based, screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:1775–1780. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous