Literature DB >> 20717107

Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort.

Jeremy T Hetzel1, Christopher S Huang, Jennifer A Coukos, Kelsey Omstead, Sandra R Cerda, Shi Yang, Michael J O'Brien, Francis A Farraye.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Serrated polyps are precursors in an alternative pathway to colon cancer. These polyps are frequently sessile or flat, located in the proximal colon, and may be overlooked during colonoscopy. Histological criteria to classify these polyps have only recently been described. This study assessed the variation of serrated polyp detection among endoscopists and pathologists in an average risk-screening cohort and trends in detection over time.
METHODS: Endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from all average risk-screening colonoscopies at an urban academic medical center from 2006 through 2008. Polyps were classified as adenoma (tubular, tubulovillous, or villous), serrated polyp (hyperplastic polyp (HP), sessile serrated adenoma (SSA), or dysplastic serrated polyp (DSP)), adenocarcinoma, or other. Differences in polyp detection among endoscopists and pathologists were tested with χ(2)-tests. Potential predictors of polyp detection were modeled with Poisson regression.
RESULTS: Included in the study were 4,335 polyps from 7,192 colonoscopies. Detection prevalence (patients with at least one polyp per 100 colonoscopies) was 22.2 for adenomas, 11.7 for HP, 0.6 for SSA, and 0.2 for DSP. Detection prevalence of proximal SSAs increased from 0.2 in 2006 to 4.4 in 2008 (P<0.001). Detection prevalences among endoscopists differed significantly for adenomas, HP, and SSA. Classification rates among pathologists differed significantly for HP and SSA, but not for adenoma or DSP. On multivariate analysis, endoscopist was a significant predictor of adenoma, HP, and SSA. Pathologist was a significant predictor of HP, SSA, and DSP, but not adenoma.
CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the detection of colorectal polyps in an average risk-screening cohort at an urban academic medical center. Detection of proximal SSAs increased during the study period. Detection of adenoma, HP, and SSA differed significantly by endoscopist. Classification of HP and SSA differed significantly by pathologist. Endoscopy and pathology practices should consider educational interventions to improve serrated polyp detection and standardize classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20717107     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  104 in total

1.  Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Julia E Weiss; Christina M Robinson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Volumetric growth rates of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps observed in situ at longitudinal CT colonography.

Authors:  P J Pickhardt; B D Pooler; K A Matkowskyj; D H Kim; W M Grady; R B Halberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.

Authors:  Vivian Ussui; Susan Coe; Cynthia Rizk; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Colonoscopy: the current king of the hill in the USA.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Danielle M Tholey; Corbett E Shelton; Gloria Francis; Archana Anantharaman; Robert A Frankel; Paurush Shah; Amy Coan; Sarah E Hegarty; Benjamin E Leiby; David M Kastenberg
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.062

7.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

Review 8.  Progress and opportunities in molecular pathological epidemiology of colorectal premalignant lesions.

Authors:  Paul Lochhead; Andrew T Chan; Edward Giovannucci; Charles S Fuchs; Kana Wu; Reiko Nishihara; Michael O'Brien; Shuji Ogino
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 9.  Interval cancers after colonoscopy-insights and recommendations.

Authors:  Silvia Sanduleanu; Ad M Masclee; Gerrit A Meijer
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 10.  The Serrated Polyp Pathway: Is It Time to Alter Surveillance Guidelines?

Authors:  Brendon O'Connell; Nazar Hafiz; Seth Crockett
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-08-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.