Literature DB >> 20414864

Assessment of the multiple components of the variability in the adenoma detection rate in sigmoidoscopy screening, and lessons for training.

M Fracchia1, C Senore, P Armaroli, R Ferraris, R Di Placido, A Musso, D Turco, C Bellisario, I Baldi, N Segnan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The determinants of the observed variability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in endoscopy screening have not yet been fully explained. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 1999 and November 2006 13 764 people (7094 men, 6670 women; age range 55-64) underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy at five hospital endoscopy units in Turin. To study the determinants of the ADR for distal adenomas, accounting for patient, examiner, and hospital characteristics, we applied a multivariate multilevel regression model.
RESULTS: Average ADRs for all adenomas and for advanced adenomas (size > or = 10 mm, villous component > 20 %, high grade dysplasia) were 13.5 % (range 5.2 %-25.0 %) and 6.4 % (3.1 %-10.7 %) for men, and 8.0 % (2.5 %-14.0 %) and 3.7 % (0.2 % - 7.4 %) for women. In multivariate analysis, increased ADR of advanced adenomas was associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95 %CI 1.49 - 2.11), self-report of one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.44, 1.11-1.86), or of recent-onset rectal bleeding (1.73, 1.24-2.40). Adjusting for these variables, a significantly lower ADR was found for endoscopists with either a lower rate of incomplete sigmoidoscopy (< 9 %; OR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.41-0.87) or a higher rate (> 12 %; 0.64, 0.45-0.91), or with low activity volume (< 85 sigmoidoscopies/year; 0.66, 0.50-0.86). Residual variability explained by the endoscopy center effect was about 1 % and statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist performance in flexible sigmoidoscopy CRC screening is highly variable. Low volume of screening activity independently predicts lower ADR, suggesting that operators devoting more time to screening sigmoidoscopy may perform better. Variability among pathologists in adenoma classification might explain part of the residual variability across endoscopy units. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart.New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20414864     DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1244131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  7 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.  Concerns and challenges in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

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

3.  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

Review 4.  Screening for colorectal cancer: possible improvements by risk assessment evaluation?

Authors:  Hans J Nielsen; Karen V Jakobsen; Ib J Christensen; Nils Brünner
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection.

Authors:  Mo Hameed Thoufeeq; Bjorn Joakim Rembacken
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2015-09-15

6.  Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study.

Authors:  Calcedonio Calcara; Paolo Aseni; Keith Siau; Pietro Gambitta; Sergio Cadoni
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.485

7.  Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Theresa Thai; Diana K N Louden; Rosemary Adamson; Jason A Dominitz; Jacob A Doll
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 3.263

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.