Literature DB >> 24315881

Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist.

Tushar D Gohel1, Carol A Burke1, Pavan Lankaala1, Amareshwar Podugu1, Ravi Pokala Kiran2, Prashanthi N Thota1, Rocio Lopez1, Madhusudhan R Sanaka3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important measure of the quality of colonoscopy; it is associated with interval colorectal cancer and varies among sexes and locations. Recommended indicators of competence for colonoscopy include minimal ADRs >25% for average-risk men and >15% for women. These ADRs are rigorous, so polypectomy detection rate (PR) has been suggested as a surrogate. Colonoscopy is less effective in the proximal colon, where interval cancers are more likely to occur. We compared ADRs and PRs in different segments of colon and between sexes.
METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional review of findings from 2167 screening colonoscopies performed by 65 endoscopists on average-risk outpatients at the Cleveland Clinic, 2008-2009. We reviewed colonoscopy and pathology reports of randomly selected procedures (mean, 33 ± 16 procedures per endoscopist). We calculated PRs, ADRs, and correlation between PR and ADR for each colon segment and sex.
RESULTS: The mean overall PR was 42% ± 16.7%, and ADR was 25% ± 3.3%. The correlation between overall ADR and PR was strong (r = 0.80). PR of 40% in men and 30% in women correlated with the established minimum benchmark ADRs of 25% and 15% for men and women, respectively. PR was more strongly correlated with ADR in the proximal colon (r = 0.92) than the distal colon (r = 0.58). The correlation was stronger in men than in women, as well as in the entire colon (r = 0.88 vs 0.75), the proximal colon (r = 0.91 vs 0.87), and the distal colon (r = 0.75 vs 0.55). The advanced ADR was 4% and did not correlate with PR (r = 0.32).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a review of findings from screening colonoscopies, overall PR correlates with ADR for the entire colon, but PR and ADR correlate most strongly for the proximal colon, where many adenomas can be missed and interval cancers develop. The correlation between PR and ADR is weaker for women than men and for distal colon. If PR is used as a surrogate for ADR, colon location and patient sex should be considered.
Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AADR; Colon Cancer Screening; Early Detection; Tumor

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24315881     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Polyp Detection Rate Correlates Strongly with Adenoma Detection Rate in Trainee Endoscopists.

Authors:  Sandy Ng; Aditya K Sreenivasan; Jillian Pecoriello; Peter S Liang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  The use of high definition colonoscopy versus standard definition: does it affect polyp detection rate?

Authors:  John Richardson; Anthony Thaventhiran; Hugh Mackenzie; Benjamin Stubbs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Predicting ADR from PDR and individual adenoma-to-polyp-detection-rate ratio for screening and surveillance colonoscopies: A new approach to quality assessment.

Authors:  C Schramm; I Scheller; J Franklin; M Demir; F Kuetting; D Nierhoff; T Goeser; U Toex; H M Steffen
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Christopher D Jensen; Miriam P van der Meulen; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Douglas A Corley; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Felippe O Marcondes; Katie M Dean; Robert E Schoen; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Michele Morris; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  A statewide program providing colorectal cancer screening to the uninsured of South Carolina.

Authors:  Jan M Eberth; Annie Thibault; Renay Caldwell; Michele J Josey; Beidi Qiang; Edsel Peña; Delecia LaFrance; Franklin G Berger
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; W Dana Flanders; Kevin C Ward; Chun Chieh Lin; Ahmedin Jemal; Ann Goding Sauer; Chyke A Doubeni; Michael Goodman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Colonoscopy: quality indicators.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.488

10.  Adenoma detection rates in an opportunistic screening colonoscopy program in Iran, a country with rising colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  Alireza Delavari; Faraz Bishehsari; Hamideh Salimzadeh; Pejman Khosravi; Farnaz Delavari; Siavosh Nasseri-Moghaddam; Shahin Merat; Reza Ansari; Homayoon Vahedi; Bijan Shahbazkhani; Mehdi Saberifiroozi; Masoud Sotoudeh; Reza Malekzadeh
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.