Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate
- PMID: 31471862
- DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05808-y
Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate
Abstract
Background: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is correlated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer and is considered as a quality benchmark for colonoscopy. Serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) might be a more stringent indicator of quality in polyp detection.
Aims: To evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice.
Methods: We determined ADR and SPDR. We collected patient-dependent factors and endoscopist-dependent factors. Links between these data and detection rates were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis.
Results: A total of 11682 colonoscopies were performed (female: 54.3%; male: 45.7%; median age 58) by 30 endoscopists (female: 9; male: 21). ADR and SPDR were 29.2% and 8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ADR was associated with patient-dependent factors: age (OR 1.044, CI 95% 1.040-1.048), male gender (OR 1.7, CI 95% 1.56-1.85), personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.53, CI 95% 1.3-1.9), and positive fecal immunochemical test (OR 2.47, CI 95% 2.0-3.1). In multivariate analysis, SPDR was associated with withdrawal time (OR 1.25, CI 95% 1.17-1.32), low volume activity (OR 1.3, CI 95% 1.1-1.52), and personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.61, CI 95% 1.15-2.25).
Conclusion: In this large series of routine colonoscopies, we found that ADR was mainly driven by patient-dependent conditions, i.e., age, male gender, colonoscopy indication for positive FIT, and a personal history of polyp or cancer. In contrast, SPDR was mainly related to endoscopist-dependent factor, i.e., withdrawal time and low volume activity.
Keywords: Adenoma; Advanced neoplasia; Colonoscopy; Detection rates; Sessile serrated polyp; Withdrawal time.
Comment in
-
Adenoma Detection Rate as a Quality Metric: Is It Really Out of the Endoscopists' Hands?Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Dec;64(12):3366-3368. doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05879-x. Dig Dis Sci. 2019. PMID: 31628572 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Serrated polyp detection and risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based study.Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Aug;7(8):747-754. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00090-5. Epub 2022 May 9. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022. PMID: 35550250
-
Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jun;85(6):1188-1194. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.020. Epub 2017 Jan 31. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017. PMID: 28153571 Free PMC article.
-
Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar;109(3):417-26. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.442. Epub 2014 Jan 7. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014. PMID: 24394752 Free PMC article.
-
G-EYE Improves Polyp, Adenoma, and Serrated Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.J Clin Gastroenterol. 2024 Aug 1;58(7):668-673. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001924. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2024. PMID: 38967382
-
Do Water-aided Techniques Improve Serrated Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy?: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jul 1;55(6):520-527. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001386. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021. PMID: 33355836
Cited by
-
Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study.Cancer Control. 2023 Jan-Dec;30:10732748231193243. doi: 10.1177/10732748231193243. Cancer Control. 2023. PMID: 37528552 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates.Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Nov;65(11):3123-3131. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06419-8. Epub 2020 Jun 20. Dig Dis Sci. 2020. PMID: 32564206 Free PMC article.
-
Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.United European Gastroenterol J. 2022 Nov;10(9):1008-1019. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12325. Epub 2022 Oct 27. United European Gastroenterol J. 2022. PMID: 36300971 Free PMC article.
-
Educating Outpatients for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy Using Conventional Methods vs Virtual Reality Videos Plus Conventional Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2135576. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.35576. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 34807255 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review.Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Apr 12;8:19. doi: 10.21037/tgh-23-8. eCollection 2023. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023. PMID: 37197256 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. - PubMed
-
- Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:104–117. - PubMed
-
- Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. - PubMed
-
- Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–1371. - PubMed
-
- Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1674–1680. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials