Robert J Hilsden1,2, Ronald Bridges1, Catherine Dube3, S Elizabeth McGregor4, Christopher Naugler5,6,7, Sarah M Rose8, Alaa Rostom3, Steven J Heitman1. 1. Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Population, Public & Aboriginal Health, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 7. Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Research Facilitation, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we included 15,329 patients aged 50-74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta-regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients. RESULTS: At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of an endoscopist's ADR or APC to determine if they fall below a given benchmark. CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed methods of defining benchmarks for ADR and APC in FIT+ patients that go beyond the current "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended in average risk patients. These new thresholds represent results obtained by all peers and by a group of expert adenoma detectors defined in an independent patient cohort (average risk). Because the true adenoma burden in FIT+ patients could vary based on factors such as the threshold used to define a positive FIT, screening programs or endoscopy units may need to calculate their own benchmarks using local data.
OBJECTIVES: Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we included 15,329 patients aged 50-74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta-regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients. RESULTS: At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of an endoscopist's ADR or APC to determine if they fall below a given benchmark. CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed methods of defining benchmarks for ADR and APC in FIT+ patients that go beyond the current "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended in average risk patients. These new thresholds represent results obtained by all peers and by a group of expert adenoma detectors defined in an independent patient cohort (average risk). Because the true adenoma burden in FIT+ patients could vary based on factors such as the threshold used to define a positive FIT, screening programs or endoscopy units may need to calculate their own benchmarks using local data.
Authors: David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Robert J Hilsden; Catherine Dube; Steven J Heitman; Ronald Bridges; S Elizabeth McGregor; Alaa Rostom Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Felippe O Marcondes; Katie M Dean; Robert E Schoen; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Michele Morris; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Charles J Kahi; Darren Ballard; Anand S Shah; Raenita Mears; Cynthia S Johnson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hank S Wang; Joseph Pisegna; Rusha Modi; Li-Jung Liang; Mary Atia; Minh Nguyen; Hartley Cohen; Gordon Ohning; Martijn van Oijen; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jamie M Tjaden; Jessica A Hause; Daniel Berger; Samantha K Duveneck; Shriram M Jakate; Bruce A Orkin; Elizabeth L Hubbard; Joshua E Melson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marco A Alvarez-Gonzalez; Miguel A Pantaleon; Juana A Flores-Le Roux; Diana Zaffalon; Jaume Amorós; Xavier Bessa; Agustin Seoane; Juan Pedro-Botet Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Deborah A Fisher; Leila Saoud; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; A Mark Fendrick; A Burak Ozbay; Bijan J Borah; Michael Matney; Marcus Parton; Paul J Limburg Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Bernard Denis; Isabelle Gendre; Nicolas Tuzin; Juliette Murris; Anne Guignard; Philippe Perrin; Gabriel Rahmi Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Maxime E S Bronzwaer; Marjolein J E Greuter; Arne G C Bleijenberg; Joep E G IJspeert; Evelien Dekker; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jaison John; Abdul Al-Douri; Bretta Candelaria; Saurin Gandhi; Paul Guzik; Brent Herndon; Christopher Kim; Nicole Kluz; Jennifer Thompson; Jessica Trevino; Victoria Valencia; Michael Pignone Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 2.260