Grace Clarke Hillyer1, Benjamin Lebwohl2, Richard M Rosenberg3, Alfred I Neugut2, Randi Wolf4, Corey H Basch5, Jennie Mata6, Edwin Hernandez3, Douglas A Corley7, Steven Shea8, Charles E Basch9. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Liver and Digestive Diseases, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA. 6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland CA, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 9. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The quality of the bowel preparation directly influences colonoscopy effectiveness. Quality indicators are widely employed to monitor operator performance and to gauge colonoscopy effectiveness. Some have suggested that the enumeration of the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MNA) may be a more useful measure of bowel preparation quality, but evidence of the utility of this metric is limited. The relationship between bowel preparation quality and MNA was assessed. METHODS: Records of adult patients, aged 50-74 years, who had undergone a screening colonoscopy in a 6 month period at a hospital-based endoscopy suite in New York City were examined. Excluded were those who were symptomatic or having a colonoscopy for surveillance. Patient and procedural characteristics and clinical findings were abstracted from the endoscopy database. Bowel preparation quality was recorded as excellent, good, fair and poor. Histology and size of polyps removed were gathered from pathology reports. MNA was calculated and incident rate ratios assessing the relationship between bowel preparation quality, MNA, and covariates was calculated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 2422 colonoscopies were identified; 815 (33.6%) were screening colonoscopies among average risk individuals, 50-74 years; 203 (24.9%) had ≥1 adenomas; and 666 (81.7%) had excellent/good preparation quality. Overall MNA was 0.34 [standard deviation (SD) 0.68] and MNA was greater among those >60 years [incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-2.42), males (IRR 1.60, 95%CI 1.26-2.04) and those with good bowel preparation (IRR 2.54, 95%CI 1.04-6.16). Among those with ≥1 adenomas, MNA was 1.48 (SD 1.05) for excellent and 1.00 (SD 0.00) for poor quality preparation (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found that MNA is sensitive to changes in bowel preparation with higher MNA among those with good bowel preparation compared with those with poor preparation. Our evidence suggests MNA was particularly sensitive when restricted to only those in whom adenomas were seen.
INTRODUCTION: The quality of the bowel preparation directly influences colonoscopy effectiveness. Quality indicators are widely employed to monitor operator performance and to gauge colonoscopy effectiveness. Some have suggested that the enumeration of the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MNA) may be a more useful measure of bowel preparation quality, but evidence of the utility of this metric is limited. The relationship between bowel preparation quality and MNA was assessed. METHODS: Records of adult patients, aged 50-74 years, who had undergone a screening colonoscopy in a 6 month period at a hospital-based endoscopy suite in New York City were examined. Excluded were those who were symptomatic or having a colonoscopy for surveillance. Patient and procedural characteristics and clinical findings were abstracted from the endoscopy database. Bowel preparation quality was recorded as excellent, good, fair and poor. Histology and size of polyps removed were gathered from pathology reports. MNA was calculated and incident rate ratios assessing the relationship between bowel preparation quality, MNA, and covariates was calculated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 2422 colonoscopies were identified; 815 (33.6%) were screening colonoscopies among average risk individuals, 50-74 years; 203 (24.9%) had ≥1 adenomas; and 666 (81.7%) had excellent/good preparation quality. Overall MNA was 0.34 [standard deviation (SD) 0.68] and MNA was greater among those >60 years [incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-2.42), males (IRR 1.60, 95%CI 1.26-2.04) and those with good bowel preparation (IRR 2.54, 95%CI 1.04-6.16). Among those with ≥1 adenomas, MNA was 1.48 (SD 1.05) for excellent and 1.00 (SD 0.00) for poor quality preparation (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found that MNA is sensitive to changes in bowel preparation with higher MNA among those with good bowel preparation compared with those with poor preparation. Our evidence suggests MNA was particularly sensitive when restricted to only those in whom adenomas were seen.
Entities:
Keywords:
bowel preparation quality; colonoscopy; colorectal cancer screening
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Nirav Shah; Kevin D Mullen; D R Ferguson; Charles Thomas; Arthur J McCullough Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees Journal: Gut Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Rajeev Attam; Zvi Alpern; Catherine R Messina; Patricia Hubbard; Roger Grimson; Peter F Ells; Douglas L Brand Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Mary E Reid; James R Marshall; Denise Roe; Michael Lebowitz; David Alberts; Achyut K Battacharyya; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jolanda de Boer; Theodore R Levin; Chyke Doubeni; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245