Literature DB >> 23321338

Differences in proximal serrated polyp detection among endoscopists are associated with variability in withdrawal time.

Thomas R de Wijkerslooth1, Esther M Stoop, Patrick M Bossuyt, Kristien M A J Tytgat, Jan Dees, Elisabeth M H Mathus-Vliegen, Ernst J Kuipers, Paul Fockens, Monique E van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Insufficient detection of proximal serrated polyps (PSP) might explain the occurrence of a proportion of interval carcinomas in colonoscopy surveillance programs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare PSP detection among endoscopists and to identify patient-related and endoscopist-related factors associated with PSP detection.
DESIGN: Prospective study in unselected patients.
SETTING: Colonoscopy screening program for colorectal cancer at two academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic consecutive screening participants (aged 50-75 years). INTERVENTION: Colonoscopies were performed by 5 experienced endoscopists. All detected polyps were removed. Multiple colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We compared PSP detection among endoscopists by calculating odds ratios (OR) with logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression also was used to identify patient features and colonoscopy factors associated with PSP detection.
RESULTS: A total of 1354 patients underwent a complete screening colonoscopy: 1635 polyps were detected, of which 707 (43%) were adenomas and 685 (42%) were serrated polyps, including 215 PSPs. In 167 patients (12%) 1 or more PSPs were detected. The PSP detection rate differed significantly among endoscopists, ranging from 6% to 22% (P < .001). Longer withdrawal time (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.16) was significantly associated with better PSP detection, whereas patient age, sex, and quality of bowel preparation were not. LIMITATIONS: Limited number of highly experienced endoscopists.
CONCLUSION: The PSP detection rate differs among endoscopists. Longer withdrawal times are associated with better PSP detection, but patient features are not. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1888.).
Copyright © 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23321338     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  55 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.  Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Adenoma Identification During Colonoscopy and Optimal Timing of Surveillance.

Authors:  Ju Seok Kim; Sun Hyung Kang; Hee Seok Moon; Eaum Seok Lee; Seok Hyun Kim; Jae Kyu Sung; Byung Seok Lee; Hyun Yong Jeong; Woo Suk Chung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Significant Variation in the Detection Rates of Proximal Serrated Polyps Among Academic Gastroenterologists, Community Gastroenterologists, and Colorectal Surgeons in a Single Tertiary Care Center.

Authors:  Rohan Mandaliya; Kamal Baig; Michele Barnhill; Vagishwari Murugesan; Aniruddh Som; Usman Mohammed; Khushali Jhaveri; Shiva Shankar Vangimalla; Allyson Raymond; Jennifer Tran; Lubaba Hasan; James H Lewis; Won Cho
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Screening, management and surveillance for the sessile serrated adenomas/polyps.

Authors:  Xiangsheng Fu; Ye Qiu; Yali Zhang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-03-15

5.  Serrated polyps and synchronous advanced neoplasia in average-risk persons.

Authors:  Xavier Bessa
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2014-03

6.  Sessile serrated polyps: detection, eradication, and prevention of the evil twin.

Authors:  Joshua C Obuch; Courtney M Pigott; Dennis J Ahnen
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03

7.  Comparison of Small Versus Large Volume Split Dose Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Study of Colonoscopy Outcomes.

Authors:  Hassan Siddiki; Sreya Ravi; Mohanad T Al-Qaisi; Ayman R Fath; Francisco Ramirez; Michael D Crowell; Rahul Pannala; Douglas O Faigel; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating.

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

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.