Literature DB >> 26024584

Adenoma detection rate in high-risk patients differs from that in average-risk patients.

Madhusudhan R Sanaka1, Tarun Rai1, Udaykumar Navaneethan1, Tushar D Gohel1, Amareshwar Podugu1, Prashanthi N Thota1, Rocio Lopez1, Ravi P Kiran1, Carol A Burke1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are established as quality targets in average-risk (AR) individuals undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopy. Little is known about the ADR in high-risk (HR) individuals undergoing index or surveillance colonoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare ADR in HR versus AR individuals undergoing colonoscopy. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective study, tertiary care center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: We reviewed records of 7357 patients who underwent colonoscopy by 66 multispecialty endoscopists at our institution during the period 2008 to 2009. Both screening and surveillance colonoscopies in AR and HR patients for CRC were studied. HR patients were further divided into 3 subgroups: those with a (1) personal history of polyps (PHP), (2) family history of polyps (FHP), and (3) family history of CRC (FHCRC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate differences in ADR between the groups after adjusting for possible confounders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR in HR patients.
RESULTS: The study included 4141 patients, of whom 2170 were AR and 1971 were HR. Patients in the HR group were older (64.5 ± 9.1 years vs 59.1 ± 7.9 years, P < .001). HR patients were more likely to have adenomas (30.7% vs 25.6%, P < .001). Adenomas were detected more often in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (29.3% vs 21.0%, P < .001 and 22.8% vs 15.8%, P < .001, respectively). Patients with a PHP had the highest ADR (33.1%, P < .001). However, after adjusting for confounders, HR status was not found to be associated with ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.6; P = .15 for females and 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.2; P = .61 for males). HR females were found to have a 40% greater likelihood of having proximal adenomas than AR females (1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-2; P = .04). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single tertiary center.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a PHP have a significantly higher ADR compared with AR patients. Defining a minimum target ADR for individuals with a PHP undergoing surveillance colonoscopy is important.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26024584     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.019

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


  6 in total

1.  Factors Associated with Surveillance Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates.

Authors:  Jennifer K Maratt; Joseph Dickens; Philip S Schoenfeld; Grace H Elta; Kenya Jackson; Daniel Rizk; Christine Erickson; Stacy B Menees
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Adenoma Detection Rates for Screening Colonoscopies in Smokers and Obese Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Christina M Robinson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.062

3.  What makes a "good" colonoscopy quality indicator?

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.

Authors:  Maryan Cavicchi; Gaëlle Tharsis; Pascal Burtin; Philippe Cattan; Franck Venezia; Gilles Tordjman; Agnès Gillet; Joëlle Samama; Karine Nahon-Uzan; David Karsenti
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate is correlated with adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Daisuke Ohki; Yosuke Tsuji; Tomohiro Shinozaki; Yoshiki Sakaguchi; Chihiro Minatsuki; Hiroto Kinoshita; Keiko Niimi; Satoshi Ono; Yoku Hayakawa; Shuntaro Yoshida; Atsuo Yamada; Shinya Kodashima; Nobutake Yamamichi; Yoshihiro Hirata; Tetsuo Ushiku; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Masashi Fukayama; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2018-03-15

6.  Anesthesia Assistance in Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators.

Authors:  Min Liang; Xinyan Zhang; Chunhong Xu; Junli Cao; Zongwang Zhang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.