Literature DB >> 14750648

Inter-endoscopist variation in polyp and neoplasia pick-up rates in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

M Bretthauer1, E Skovlund, T Grotmol, E Thiis-Evensen, G Gondal, G Huppertz-Hauss, P Efskind, B Hofstad, S Thorp Holmsen, T J Eide, G Hoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention study is an ongoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening trial for colorectal cancer. Twenty-one thousand average-risk individuals, aged 50-64 years, living in two separate areas in Norway were randomly drawn from the Population Registry and invited to once-only screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed over 3 years, at 2 centres, by 8 different endoscopists, using the same type of equipment. The aim of the present study was to investigate possible differences between endoscopists in detecting individuals with polyps, adenomas and advanced lesions (adenomas with severe dysplasia and/or villous components and/or size larger than 9 mm and carcinoma) in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.
METHODS: The present trial comprises data from 8822 individuals, aged 55-64 years, who have undergone a flexible sigmoidoscopy. In the study period, all lesions detected by the different endoscopists were registered. Tissue samples were taken from all lesions detected.
RESULTS: Detection rates varied significantly between endoscopists, ranging from 36.4% to 65.5% for individuals with any polyp, from 12.7% to 21.2% for any adenoma and from 2.9% to 5.0% for advanced lesions. In a multiple logistic regression model, the performing endoscopist was a strong independent predictor for detection of individuals with polyps (P < 0.001 ), adenomas (P < 0.001) and advanced lesions (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Detection rates for colorectal lesions vary significantly between endoscopists in colorectal cancer screening. Establishing systems for monitoring performance in screening programmes is important. Supervised training and re-certification for endoscopists with poor performance should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14750648     DOI: 10.1080/00365520310006513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0036-5521            Impact factor:   2.423


  8 in total

1.  Concerns and challenges in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

Authors:  Akeem O Adebogun; Christine D Berg; Adeyinka O Laiyemo
Journal:  Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2012-08

2.  Is There a Place for Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy?

Authors:  Doron Boltin; Yaron Niv
Journal:  Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep       Date:  2012-03

3.  Adjusting for patient demographics has minimal effects on rates of adenoma detection in a large, community-based setting.

Authors:  Christopher D Jensen; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Theodore R Levin; Ann G Zauber; Joanne E Schottinger; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Nirupa R Ghai; Jennifer L Schneider; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Contribution of screening and survival differences to racial disparities in colorectal cancer rates.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz; Amy B Knudsen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 5.  Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Brian C Jacobson
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.806

6.  Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.

Authors:  Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jolanda de Boer; Bruce H Fireman; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Nirupa R Ghai; Theodore R Levin; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Quality in the technical performance of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: recommendations of an international multi-society task group.

Authors:  T R Levin; F A Farraye; R E Schoen; G Hoff; W Atkin; J H Bond; S Winawer; R W Burt; D A Johnson; L M Kirk; S C Litin; D K Rex
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Progress and challenges in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Enrique Quintero; Cesare Hassan; Carlo Senore; Yutaka Saito
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.260

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.