C Schramm1, I Scheller2, J Franklin3, M Demir1, F Kuetting1, D Nierhoff1, T Goeser1, U Toex1, H M Steffen1. 1. Department for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Cologne, Germany. 2. Practice for Gastroenterology Remscheid, Remscheid, Germany. 3. Institute for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been established as a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Because ADR is cumbersome to obtain in routine practice, polyp detection rate (PDR), polypectomy rate (PR) and adenoma-to-polyp-detection-rate-ratio (APDRR) have been proposed to estimate ADR. This study aimed to evaluate APDRR in order to estimate ADR (ADRest) in different settings. METHODS: Average risk screening and surveillance colonoscopies from a community-based private practice and a tertiary academic hospital setting were retrospectively evaluated. APDRR was calculated as averaged group APDRR for all study procedures (APDRR) and for the first half of study procedures of each gastroenterologist (APDRRag) or individually for each gastroenterologist on the basis of his or her first 25, 50 and 100 colonoscopies (APDRRind). ADRest was determined from PDR by using APDRR, APDRRag, and APDRRind, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2717 individuals were analyzed. Using APDRR, significant correlations between ADR and ADRest were observed for the entire (0.944, p < 0.001), proximal (0.854, p < 0.001), and distal (0.977, p < 0.001) colon. These correlations were lost when APDRRag was used to estimate each gastroenterologist's ADR for the second half of his or her included colonoscopies. However, ADR and ADRest correlated significantly with a root-mean-square-error of 6.8% and 5.8% when APDRRind on the basis of each gastroenterologist's first 50 and 100 colonoscopies was used for subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: ADR for subsequent colonoscopies of an individual endoscopist can be reliably estimated from PDR by using an individually calculated APDRR. Prospective studies are needed to verify this promising approach in different practice settings.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been established as a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Because ADR is cumbersome to obtain in routine practice, polyp detection rate (PDR), polypectomy rate (PR) and adenoma-to-polyp-detection-rate-ratio (APDRR) have been proposed to estimate ADR. This study aimed to evaluate APDRR in order to estimate ADR (ADRest) in different settings. METHODS: Average risk screening and surveillance colonoscopies from a community-based private practice and a tertiary academic hospital setting were retrospectively evaluated. APDRR was calculated as averaged group APDRR for all study procedures (APDRR) and for the first half of study procedures of each gastroenterologist (APDRRag) or individually for each gastroenterologist on the basis of his or her first 25, 50 and 100 colonoscopies (APDRRind). ADRest was determined from PDR by using APDRR, APDRRag, and APDRRind, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2717 individuals were analyzed. Using APDRR, significant correlations between ADR and ADRest were observed for the entire (0.944, p < 0.001), proximal (0.854, p < 0.001), and distal (0.977, p < 0.001) colon. These correlations were lost when APDRRag was used to estimate each gastroenterologist's ADR for the second half of his or her included colonoscopies. However, ADR and ADRest correlated significantly with a root-mean-square-error of 6.8% and 5.8% when APDRRind on the basis of each gastroenterologist's first 50 and 100 colonoscopies was used for subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: ADR for subsequent colonoscopies of an individual endoscopist can be reliably estimated from PDR by using an individually calculated APDRR. Prospective studies are needed to verify this promising approach in different practice settings.
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: 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: Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Shawn S Forbes; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-09-18 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Hermann Brenner; Lutz Altenhofen; Jens Kretschmann; Thomas Rösch; Christian Pox; Christian Stock; Michael Hoffmeister Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Tushar Gohel; Amareshwar Podugu; Ravi P Kiran; Prashanthi N Thota; Rocio Lopez; James M Church; Carol A Burke Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Martin Floer; Laura Tschaikowski; Michael Schepke; Radoslaw Kempinski; Katarzyna Neubauer; Elzbieta Poniewierka; Steffen Kunsch; Detlev Ameis; Hauke Sebastian Heinzow; Agneta Auer; Hartmut H Schmidt; Volker Ellenrieder; Tobias Meister Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Bernard Denis; Isabelle Gendre; Nicolas Tuzin; Juliette Murris; Anne Guignard; Philippe Perrin; Gabriel Rahmi Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-09-14