Literature DB >> 18500502

Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy.

Monica S Millan1, Perita Gross, Elena Manilich, James M Church.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Completion rate is the most commonly used index of quality in colonoscopy, and yet a complete examination is not necessarily a good examination. The ability to detect and treat adenomas is an important component of endoscopic skill, because many colonoscopies are performed for this express purpose. Adenoma detection rate is rarely reported, although it seems to depend on the time taken for withdrawal. The literature suggests that adenomas should be detected in approximately 25 percent of men and 15 percent of women older than age 50 years. We have reviewed the adenoma detection rates of six colorectal surgeons to provide insight into the range of adenoma detection rates and the factors that influence them.
METHODS: A prospective departmental colonoscopy database was queried. Colonoscopy completion rates, adenoma detection rates, and times of insertion and withdrawal were noted and stratified by the six staff colonoscopists. Adenoma detection rates were tabulated for the four common indications for colonoscopy.
RESULTS: Each staff endoscopist performed >250 examinations per year and had performed >1,000 total examinations. Although completion rates are fairly uniform (mean, 96.5 (range, 94.8-97.9) percent), there is a wide range of ADR, especially when adenomas are common (polyp or cancer surveillance; range, 14.2-27.4 percent). With the exclusion of one outlier staff, regression of withdrawal time against adenoma detection rate produced an r(2) of 0.975 (P = 0.0016).
CONCLUSIONS: Adenoma detection rate is independent of completion rate as a colonoscopy quality indicator. There is a wide range of adenoma detection rates among experienced colorectal surgeons. Colonoscopists need to be aware of their adenoma detection rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18500502     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-008-9315-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  33 in total

1.  Patient- and procedure-related factors affecting proximal and distal detection rates for polyps and adenomas: results from 1603 screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Christoph Schramm; Nadine Mbaya; Jeremy Franklin; Muenevver Demir; Fabian Kuetting; Ulrich Toex; Tobias Goeser; Hans-Michael Steffen
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Birthplace is not a determinant of colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Fiona Tran; Jenn Hian Koo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Authors:  Mary A Atia; Francisco C Ramirez; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

4.  Colometer: a real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Dobromir Filip; Xuexin Gao; Leticia Angulo-Rodríguez; Martin P Mintchev; Shane M Devlin; Alaa Rostom; Wayne Rosen; Christopher N Andrews
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Risk factors associated with missed colorectal flat adenoma: a multicenter retrospective tandem colonoscopy study.

Authors:  Li Xiang; Qiang Zhan; Xin-Hua Zhao; Ya-Dong Wang; Sheng-Li An; Yang-Zhi Xu; Ai-Min Li; Wei Gong; Yang Bai; Fa-Chao Zhi; Si-De Liu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Location, size, and distance: criteria for quality in esophagogastroduodenos copy reporting for pre-operative gastric cancer evaluation.

Authors:  Nikila C Ravindran; Jovanka Vasilevska-Ristovska; Natalie G Coburn; Alyson Mahar; Yimeng Zhang; Nadia Gunraj; Rinku Sutradhar; Calvin H Law; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: Systematic review and clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Erin B Kennedy; David Baron; Mae Burke; Stanley Feinberg; Michael Gould; Nancy Baxter; Nancy Lewis
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-05

8.  Prolonged Cecal Insertion Time Is Not Associated with Decreased Adenoma Detection When a Longer Withdrawal Time Is Achieved.

Authors:  Cassandra D L Fritz; Zachary L Smith; Jeffrey Elsner; Thomas Hollander; Dayna Early; Vladimir Kushnir
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Validation of methylation biomarkers that distinguish normal colon mucosa of cancer patients from normal colon mucosa of patients without cancer.

Authors:  Matteo Cesaroni; Jasmine Powell; Carmen Sapienza
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2014-05-07

10.  Relationship between detection of adenomas by flexible sigmoidoscopy and interval distal colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shari S Rogal; Paul F Pinsky; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.