Nezar Y Jrebi1,2, Matthew Hefty3, Tarek Jalouta3, James Ogilvie3, Alan T Davis3, Theodor Asgeirsson3, Martin Luchtefeld3. 1. Ferguson Clinic, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners Research Department, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. nejrebi@hsc.wvu.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, West Virginia University-Ruby Memorial Hospital, 1 Medical Center Drive, PO BOX 9238, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA. nejrebi@hsc.wvu.edu. 3. Ferguson Clinic, Grand Rapids Medical Education Partners Research Department, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) imaging has been reported to increase polyp detection rates. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) before and after the implementation of HD colonoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients aged 48-55 years old, who underwent first-time screening colonoscopy. The first group underwent standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy in the first 6 months of 2011. The second group underwent screening with HD colonoscopy during the first 6 months of 2012. We compared age, gender, PDR, ADR, and average sizes of adenomatous polyps between gastroenterologist and colorectal surgeon and among physicians themselves. Statistical analysis was performed with Fischer's exact test and Pearson Chi-square. RESULTS: A total of 1268 patients were involved in the study (634 in each group). PDR (35.6 vs. 48.2 %, p < 0.001) and ADR (22.2 vs. 30.4 %, p = 0.02) were higher in the HD group. The average size of an adenomatous polyp was the same in the two groups (0.58 vs. 0.57, p = 0.69). However, this difference was not seen among colorectal surgeons PDR (35.7 vs. 37 %, p = 0.789), ADR (22.9 vs. 24.5 % p = 0.513), but clearly seen among gastroenterologist, PDR (35.6 vs. 53.1 % p < 0.001) and ADR (21.9 vs. 32.9 % p < 0.001). When polyps were categorized into size groups, there was no difference in ADR between the two timeframes (<5 mm in size (41.5 vs. 35.4 %), 5-10 mm (49.3 vs. 60.1 %) and >10 mm (9.2 vs. 4.5 %), p = 0.07). Polyps were most commonly seen in the sigmoid colon (26.1 vs. 24.7 %). There was no difference in the rate of synchronous polyp detection between modalities (25.6 vs. 29 %, p = 0.51). Withdrawal time was the same in both procedure (9.2 vs. 8.5 min, p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Screening colonoscopy with high-definition technology significantly improved both PDR and ADR. In addition, high-definition colonoscopy may be particularly useful and advantageous among less experienced endoscopists in various community settings. However, there needs to be application to specific patient populations in future studies to assess for any statistical differences between standard- and high-definition modalities to determine clinical utility.
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) imaging has been reported to increase polyp detection rates. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) before and after the implementation of HD colonoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients aged 48-55 years old, who underwent first-time screening colonoscopy. The first group underwent standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy in the first 6 months of 2011. The second group underwent screening with HD colonoscopy during the first 6 months of 2012. We compared age, gender, PDR, ADR, and average sizes of adenomatous polyps between gastroenterologist and colorectal surgeon and among physicians themselves. Statistical analysis was performed with Fischer's exact test and Pearson Chi-square. RESULTS: A total of 1268 patients were involved in the study (634 in each group). PDR (35.6 vs. 48.2 %, p < 0.001) and ADR (22.2 vs. 30.4 %, p = 0.02) were higher in the HD group. The average size of an adenomatous polyp was the same in the two groups (0.58 vs. 0.57, p = 0.69). However, this difference was not seen among colorectal surgeons PDR (35.7 vs. 37 %, p = 0.789), ADR (22.9 vs. 24.5 % p = 0.513), but clearly seen among gastroenterologist, PDR (35.6 vs. 53.1 % p < 0.001) and ADR (21.9 vs. 32.9 % p < 0.001). When polyps were categorized into size groups, there was no difference in ADR between the two timeframes (<5 mm in size (41.5 vs. 35.4 %), 5-10 mm (49.3 vs. 60.1 %) and >10 mm (9.2 vs. 4.5 %), p = 0.07). Polyps were most commonly seen in the sigmoid colon (26.1 vs. 24.7 %). There was no difference in the rate of synchronous polyp detection between modalities (25.6 vs. 29 %, p = 0.51). Withdrawal time was the same in both procedure (9.2 vs. 8.5 min, p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Screening colonoscopy with high-definition technology significantly improved both PDR and ADR. In addition, high-definition colonoscopy may be particularly useful and advantageous among less experienced endoscopists in various community settings. However, there needs to be application to specific patient populations in future studies to assess for any statistical differences between standard- and high-definition modalities to determine clinical utility.
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Joan L Warren; Michael J Barrett; Therese A Stukel; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Erich V Kliewer; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Charles N Bernstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-06-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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: G Tribonias; A Theodoropoulou; K Konstantinidis; E Vardas; K Karmiris; N Chroniaris; G Chlouverakis; G A Paspatis Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: J E East; M Stavrindis; S Thomas-Gibson; T Guenther; P P Tekkis; B P Saunders Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Maria Pellisé; Glòria Fernández-Esparrach; Andrés Cárdenas; Oriol Sendino; Elena Ricart; Eva Vaquero; Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Cristina Rodríguez de Miguel; Michel Zabalza; Angels Ginès; Josep M Piqué; Josep Llach; Antoni Castells Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 22.682
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