BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy reduces the risk of colorectal cancer mortality by removing precancerous adenomas. The detection rate of subcentimeter (<10 mm) polyps is lower for procedures with inadequate preparation quality. OBJECTIVE: To compare the adenoma detection rates of small (6-9 mm) and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) adenomas in patients with poor and fair quality preparations with those with adequate quality preparations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and multivariable, hierarchical model. SETTING: Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PATIENTS: This study involved 8800 colonoscopies performed from 2001 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Preparation quality rating, polyp size, and polyp histology. RESULTS: Preparation quality was rated as fair in 2809 (31.9%) and poor in 829 (9.4%) colonoscopies. In patients with poor compared with adequate quality, the detection rate was lower for diminutive adenomas (odds ratio [OR] 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) but not for small adenomas (OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.07). There were no differences in the detection rate of diminutive (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24]) or small (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.27) adenomas in patients with fair compared with adequate quality preparation. Detection of advanced histology in patients with poor preparation quality was lower than in those with adequate quality (P = .027; 3.3% vs 5.0%), but there was no difference in those with fair compared with adequate quality (P = .893; 4.9% vs 5.0%). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study; no standardization of preparation quality or size measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A fair preparation quality rating does not decrease the detection rate for adenomas of any size or for advanced histology, suggesting that fair quality may be considered adequate and that follow-up intervals may not need to be shortened. Poor preparation quality decreases the detection rate of diminutive adenomas and advanced histology, suggesting substandard colonoscopy performance.
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy reduces the risk of colorectal cancer mortality by removing precancerous adenomas. The detection rate of subcentimeter (<10 mm) polyps is lower for procedures with inadequate preparation quality. OBJECTIVE: To compare the adenoma detection rates of small (6-9 mm) and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) adenomas in patients with poor and fair quality preparations with those with adequate quality preparations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and multivariable, hierarchical model. SETTING: Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PATIENTS: This study involved 8800 colonoscopies performed from 2001 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Preparation quality rating, polyp size, and polyp histology. RESULTS: Preparation quality was rated as fair in 2809 (31.9%) and poor in 829 (9.4%) colonoscopies. In patients with poor compared with adequate quality, the detection rate was lower for diminutive adenomas (odds ratio [OR] 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) but not for small adenomas (OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.07). There were no differences in the detection rate of diminutive (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24]) or small (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.27) adenomas in patients with fair compared with adequate quality preparation. Detection of advanced histology in patients with poor preparation quality was lower than in those with adequate quality (P = .027; 3.3% vs 5.0%), but there was no difference in those with fair compared with adequate quality (P = .893; 4.9% vs 5.0%). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study; no standardization of preparation quality or size measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A fair preparation quality rating does not decrease the detection rate for adenomas of any size or for advanced histology, suggesting that fair quality may be considered adequate and that follow-up intervals may not need to be shortened. Poor preparation quality decreases the detection rate of diminutive adenomas and advanced histology, suggesting substandard colonoscopy performance.
Authors: Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Eric A Sherer; Jon Cardwell; Cynthia S Johnson; Huiping Xu; Dennis Ahnen; Fadi Antaki; Christopher Ashley; Gyorgy Baffy; Ilseung Cho; Jason Dominitz; Jason Hou; Mark Korsten; Anil Nagar; Kittichai Promrat; Douglas Robertson; Sameer Saini; Amandeep Shergill; Walter Smalley; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brian T Clark; Petr Protiva; Anil Nagar; Avlin Imaeda; Maria M Ciarleglio; Yanhong Deng; Loren Laine Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Martha Goodrich; Julia E Weiss Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 9.427
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
Authors: Christopher John Murphy; N Jewel Samadder; Kristen Cox; Ronak Iqbal; Brian So; Daniel Croxford; John C Fang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.199