Christoph Schramm1, Nadine Mbaya2, Jeremy Franklin3, Muenevver Demir2, Fabian Kuetting2, Ulrich Toex2, Tobias Goeser2, Hans-Michael Steffen2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. christoph.schramm@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 3. Institute for Medical statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening colonoscopy is less effective in reducing the incidence of proximal compared to distal colorectal cancer, presumably because of missed adenomas and advanced lesions during endoscopy. Thus, effectiveness and success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depend decisively on the quality of the endoscopic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1603 average risk screening colonoscopies to calculate and to identify determinants of separate detection rates for proximally and distally located polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas was performed. RESULTS: 56.1 % of 1603 individuals included were men, and the mean age was 60.2 ± 10.2 years. Distal detection rates were markedly higher compared to proximal detection rates for polyps (40.9 vs. 23.8 %), adenomas (21.3 vs. 16.2 %), and advanced adenomas (4.0 vs. 2.0 %). A gradual increase in detection rates with increasing age was found for proximal and distal localization. Gender difference was also seen for polyps and adenomas, but not for advanced adenomas. In multivariate analysis, age <65.0 years and female gender were independently associated with a lower separate polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The use of propofol was the only procedure-related variable significantly associated with higher polyp detection rate. CONCLUSION: Since age and gender affect detection rates of proximally and distally located polyps and adenomas, the requirement of a specific gender-related limit in total detection rates may be insufficient as a quality indicator for screening colonoscopies.
BACKGROUND: Screening colonoscopy is less effective in reducing the incidence of proximal compared to distal colorectal cancer, presumably because of missed adenomas and advanced lesions during endoscopy. Thus, effectiveness and success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depend decisively on the quality of the endoscopic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1603 average risk screening colonoscopies to calculate and to identify determinants of separate detection rates for proximally and distally located polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas was performed. RESULTS: 56.1 % of 1603 individuals included were men, and the mean age was 60.2 ± 10.2 years. Distal detection rates were markedly higher compared to proximal detection rates for polyps (40.9 vs. 23.8 %), adenomas (21.3 vs. 16.2 %), and advanced adenomas (4.0 vs. 2.0 %). A gradual increase in detection rates with increasing age was found for proximal and distal localization. Gender difference was also seen for polyps and adenomas, but not for advanced adenomas. In multivariate analysis, age <65.0 years and female gender were independently associated with a lower separate polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The use of propofol was the only procedure-related variable significantly associated with higher polyp detection rate. CONCLUSION: Since age and gender affect detection rates of proximally and distally located polyps and adenomas, the requirement of a specific gender-related limit in total detection rates may be insufficient as a quality indicator for screening colonoscopies.
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: C Pox; S Aretz; S C Bischoff; U Graeven; M Hass; P Heußner; W Hohenberger; A Holstege; J Hübner; F Kolligs; M Kreis; P Lux; J Ockenga; R Porschen; S Post; N Rahner; A Reinacher-Schick; J F Riemann; R Sauer; A Sieg; W Scheppach; W Schmitt; H J Schmoll; K Schulmann; A Tannapfel; W Schmiegel Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Zhongliang Chen; Deanna M Rothwell; Chris Vinden; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: M Fracchia; C Senore; P Armaroli; R Ferraris; R Di Placido; A Musso; D Turco; C Bellisario; I Baldi; N Segnan Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas J W Lee; Colin J Rees; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Claire Nickerson; Karen C Wright; Peter W James; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Matthew D Rutter Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 10.093
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
Authors: Yaseen B Perbtani; Michael Riverso; Jonathan J Shuster; Joydeep Chakraborty; Tony S Brar; Mitali Agarwal; Han Zhang; Anand Gupte; Shailendra S Chauhan; Christopher E Forsmark; Peter V Draganov; Dennis Yang Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-11-24
Authors: Majid A Almadi; Abed Allehibi; Mohammad A Aljebreen; Othman R Alharbi; Nahla Azzam; Abdulrahman M Aljebreen Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2019 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Martin Buerger; Philipp Kasper; Gabriel Allo; Johannes Gillessen; Christoph Schramm Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Jung Hun Park; Sang Jin Kim; Jong Hee Hyun; Kyung Su Han; Byung Chang Kim; Chang Won Hong; Sang-Jeon Lee; Dae Kyung Sohn Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2017-06-30