BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing high-definition white-light colonoscopy by a high adenoma detector may have a lower risk of interval adenoma detection on follow-up colonoscopy and may require less frequent follow-up but may paradoxically be assigned to more frequent surveillance when more adenomas are detected. AIMS: To evaluate whether high-definition white-light colonoscopy (vs. standard-definition white-light colonoscopy) and endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) at index colonoscopy are associated with increased likelihood of adenomas at follow-up. METHODS: Longitudinal follow-up of prior cross-section cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at baseline with at least one detected adenoma was included. Associations of type of white-light at index colonoscopy and the ADR of the endoscopist at index colonoscopy (high vs. low adenoma detector) were evaluated with various adenoma and polyp detection endpoints. Eighteen endoscopists were classified as high and low adenoma detectors based on the median ADR of 0.255. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in subsequent interval adenoma or polyp detection endpoints with regard to whether baseline exam was performed with high-definition white-light or standard-definition white-light colonoscopy nor between high and low ADR after adjusting for multiple testing (P ≤ 0.0029 considered significant). Prior to multiple testing adjustment, there was a significantly lower detection rate of hyperplastic polyps in the left colon (24 vs. 35 %, OR: 0.56, P = 0.033) at follow-up colonoscopy when baseline exam was performed with high-definition white-light index colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not support adjusting colonoscopy surveillance guidelines based on type of colonoscopy performed or the endoscopist's ADR.
BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing high-definition white-light colonoscopy by a high adenoma detector may have a lower risk of interval adenoma detection on follow-up colonoscopy and may require less frequent follow-up but may paradoxically be assigned to more frequent surveillance when more adenomas are detected. AIMS: To evaluate whether high-definition white-light colonoscopy (vs. standard-definition white-light colonoscopy) and endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) at index colonoscopy are associated with increased likelihood of adenomas at follow-up. METHODS: Longitudinal follow-up of prior cross-section cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at baseline with at least one detected adenoma was included. Associations of type of white-light at index colonoscopy and the ADR of the endoscopist at index colonoscopy (high vs. low adenoma detector) were evaluated with various adenoma and polyp detection endpoints. Eighteen endoscopists were classified as high and low adenoma detectors based on the median ADR of 0.255. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in subsequent interval adenoma or polyp detection endpoints with regard to whether baseline exam was performed with high-definition white-light or standard-definition white-light colonoscopy nor between high and low ADR after adjusting for multiple testing (P ≤ 0.0029 considered significant). Prior to multiple testing adjustment, there was a significantly lower detection rate of hyperplastic polyps in the left colon (24 vs. 35 %, OR: 0.56, P = 0.033) at follow-up colonoscopy when baseline exam was performed with high-definition white-light index colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not support adjusting colonoscopy surveillance guidelines based on type of colonoscopy performed or the endoscopist's ADR.
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Charles J Kahi; David G Hewett; Dustin Lee Norton; George J Eckert; Douglas K Rex Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna M Buchner; Muhammad W Shahid; Michael G Heckman; Rebecca B McNeil; Patrick Cleveland; Kanwar R Gill; Anthony Schore; Marwan Ghabril; Massimo Raimondo; Seth A Gross; Michael B Wallace Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Vikram Vadyala; Rebecca Slack; Somashekar G Krishna; William A Ross; Patrick M Lynch; Robert S Bresalier; Ernest Hawk; John R Stroehlein Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Timo Rath; Gian E Tontini; Andreas Nägel; Michael Vieth; Steffen Zopf; Claudia Günther; Arthur Hoffman; Markus F Neurath; Helmut Neumann Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cesare Hassan; Pedro Amaro; Anurag Agrawal; Lene Brink; Wolfgang Fischbach; Matthias Hünger; Rodrigo Jover; Urpo Kinnunen; Akiko Ono; Árpád Patai; Silvia Pecere; Lucio Petruzziello; Jürgen Ferdinand Riemann; Harry Staines; Ann L Stringer; Ervin Toth; Giulio Antonelli; Lorenzo Fuccio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 3.390