Literature DB >> 29043592

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

Jennifer K Maratt1,2, Joseph Dickens3, Philip S Schoenfeld4, Grace H Elta5, Kenya Jackson5, Daniel Rizk3, Christine Erickson5, Stacy B Menees5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited. AIMS: Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors.
METHODS: A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.88), BMI per kg/m2 (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.27) and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15-1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10-0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR.
CONCLUSIONS: For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists' screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; Detection rates; Quality indicators

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29043592      PMCID: PMC5818715          DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4792-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  25 in total

1.  Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; J Lucas Williams; Jennifer L Holub; Cynthia D Morris; Judith R Logan; Glenn M Eisen; Patricia Carney
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

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

3.  Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection.

Authors:  Anna M Buchner; Muhammad W Shahid; Michael G Heckman; Nancy N Diehl; Rebecca B McNeil; Patrick Cleveland; Kanwar R Gill; Anthony Schore; Marwan Ghabril; Massimo Raimondo; Seth A Gross; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Lynn Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Tracy L Onega; Christopher I Amos; Michael L Beach
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 10.864

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

Authors:  Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Tarun Rai; Udaykumar Navaneethan; Tushar D Gohel; Amareshwar Podugu; Prashanthi N Thota; Rocio Lopez; Ravi P Kiran; Carol A Burke
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Charles J Kahi; David G Hewett; Dustin Lee Norton; George J Eckert; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

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

8.  The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Robert E Schoen; Joel L Weissfeld; Timothy Church; Lance A Yokochi; V Paul Doria-Rose; Philip Prorok
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: implications for screening and quality programs.

Authors:  Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jolanda de Boer; Theodore R Levin; Chyke Doubeni; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Martha Goodrich; Christina M Robinson; Julia E Weiss
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  6 in total

1.  Patient, Physician, and Procedure Characteristics Are Independently Predictive of Polyp Detection Rates in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Nicole G Jawitz; Ziad F Gellad; Li Lin; Richard K Wood; David A Leiman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Adenoma Detection Rate as a Quality Metric: Is It Really Out of the Endoscopists' Hands?

Authors:  Selvi Thirumurthi; William A Ross
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  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

4.  Colorectal sessile serrated lesion with large size or synchronous neoplasm: a prospective study.

Authors:  Laxmi B Chavali; Kun Hu; Anish Sheth; Nan Gao; Wei Xiong; Lanjing Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Herniation of crypts in hyperplastic polyp and sessile serrated adenoma: a prospective study.

Authors:  Kun Hu; Shiqian Shen; Lanjing Zhang
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.942

6.  Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of polyp detection.

Authors:  Lei Xu; Xinjue He; Jianbo Zhou; Jie Zhang; Xinli Mao; Guoliang Ye; Qiang Chen; Feng Xu; Jianzhong Sang; Jun Wang; Yong Ding; Youming Li; Chaohui Yu
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 4.452

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.