Jamie M Tjaden1, Jessica A Hause2, Daniel Berger2, Samantha K Duveneck2, Shriram M Jakate3, Bruce A Orkin4, Elizabeth L Hubbard2, Joshua E Melson5,6. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. joshua_melson@rush.edu. 6. , 1725 W Harrison St, Suite 207, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. joshua_melson@rush.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A target goal for screening adenoma detection rate (S-ADR) of ≥ 25% has been set to define high-quality colonoscopy performance. However, there is no current accepted target goal for ADR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance. This makes quality assessment challenging when physicians perform cancer surveillance colonoscopy but minimal screening procedures. METHODS: In this cohort study, consecutive colonoscopies performed at either Rush University Medical Center or Rush Oak Park Hospital by a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon in average risk screening population and CRC surveillance population were reviewed retrospectively from 2006 to 2012 and prospectively from 2013 to 2016. ADR in first surveillance colonoscopy following surgical resection of CRC (CRC-ADR) was reported in high-quality detectors (HQD) or low-quality detectors (LQD) based on achievement of 25% ADR in consecutive screening colonoscopy in average risk patients. Pearson's correlation was used to describe the association between individual S-ADR and CRC-ADR for colonoscopists. RESULTS: There was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.88, p = 0.002) between ADR in average risk screening and first time CRC surveillance. For HQD as defined by S-ADR ≥ 25% (n = 10 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 37.7% (78/207, SD 8%) which was very similar to their respective S-ADR of 33.4% (816/2440, p = 0.22). For LQD (n = 5 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 20.2% (40/198) which was similar to their respective S-ADR of 20.1% (119/591, p = 0.99). The CRC-ADR was significantly higher for HQD than for LQD (37.7 vs. 20.2%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The major finding of this study is a defined CRC-ADR for HQD based on the ability to achieve S-ADR ≥ 25%. S-ADR strongly correlates with CRC-ADR. CRC-ADR is quite similar to the colonoscopists' respective S-ADR for both HQD and LQD. For colonoscopists who perform limited screening colonoscopies but do perform CRC surveillance colonoscopies, ADR metrics similar to S-ADR to assess quality in colonoscopy could be considered.
BACKGROUND: A target goal for screening adenoma detection rate (S-ADR) of ≥ 25% has been set to define high-quality colonoscopy performance. However, there is no current accepted target goal for ADR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance. This makes quality assessment challenging when physicians perform cancer surveillance colonoscopy but minimal screening procedures. METHODS: In this cohort study, consecutive colonoscopies performed at either Rush University Medical Center or Rush Oak Park Hospital by a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon in average risk screening population and CRC surveillance population were reviewed retrospectively from 2006 to 2012 and prospectively from 2013 to 2016. ADR in first surveillance colonoscopy following surgical resection of CRC (CRC-ADR) was reported in high-quality detectors (HQD) or low-quality detectors (LQD) based on achievement of 25% ADR in consecutive screening colonoscopy in average risk patients. Pearson's correlation was used to describe the association between individual S-ADR and CRC-ADR for colonoscopists. RESULTS: There was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.88, p = 0.002) between ADR in average risk screening and first time CRC surveillance. For HQD as defined by S-ADR ≥ 25% (n = 10 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 37.7% (78/207, SD 8%) which was very similar to their respective S-ADR of 33.4% (816/2440, p = 0.22). For LQD (n = 5 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 20.2% (40/198) which was similar to their respective S-ADR of 20.1% (119/591, p = 0.99). The CRC-ADR was significantly higher for HQD than for LQD (37.7 vs. 20.2%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The major finding of this study is a defined CRC-ADR for HQD based on the ability to achieve S-ADR ≥ 25%. S-ADR strongly correlates with CRC-ADR. CRC-ADR is quite similar to the colonoscopists' respective S-ADR for both HQD and LQD. For colonoscopists who perform limited screening colonoscopies but do perform CRC surveillance colonoscopies, ADR metrics similar to S-ADR to assess quality in colonoscopy could be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenomas; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer
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; Ronald Bridges; Catherine Dube; S Elizabeth McGregor; Christopher Naugler; Sarah M Rose; Alaa Rostom; Steven J Heitman Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 10.864
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
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