Eugene Kligman1, Wenfang Li2,3, George J Eckert2,3, Charles Kahi4,5. 1. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. ckahi2@iu.edu. 5. Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, 1481 W 10th Street, 111G, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. ckahi2@iu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a powerful measure of screening colonoscopy quality. Patients who undergo colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) have increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia, but it is not known whether separate quality benchmarks are required. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional ADR to the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of positive FIT, in asymptomatic average-risk patients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 50 years old who underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive FIT between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014, at a tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Center were identified. FIT performed for any indication other than average-risk screening was excluded. The comparison group included average-risk patients ≥ 50 years old undergoing screening colonoscopy during the same time frame. The two groups were compared for ADR, advanced neoplasm [adenoma ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous, high-grade dysplasia, CRC, sessile serrated polyp (SSP) ≥ 10 mm], CRC, and SSP detection after propensity score adjustment using a logistic regression model adjusted for endoscopist. RESULTS: There were 207 patients in the FIT group and 601 in the screening colonoscopy comparison group. After propensity score adjustment, ADR (72.9 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003), number of adenomas per colonoscopy (3.3 ± 3.6 vs. 1.4 ± 2.3, p = 0.033), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (32.4 vs. 11.0%, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the FIT group. There were no significant differences in the number of CRC and the SSP detection rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of average-risk Veterans, the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of a positive FIT was higher than the ADR of screening colonoscopies. Patients with a positive FIT also had significantly more adenomas per colonoscopy and advanced neoplasms. These findings suggest that the quality of colonoscopies performed for a positive FIT is insufficiently assessed by the conventional ADR and requires additional quality metrics.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a powerful measure of screening colonoscopy quality. Patients who undergo colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) have increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia, but it is not known whether separate quality benchmarks are required. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional ADR to the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of positive FIT, in asymptomatic average-risk patients. METHODS:Patients ≥ 50 years old who underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive FIT between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014, at a tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Center were identified. FIT performed for any indication other than average-risk screening was excluded. The comparison group included average-risk patients ≥ 50 years old undergoing screening colonoscopy during the same time frame. The two groups were compared for ADR, advanced neoplasm [adenoma ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous, high-grade dysplasia, CRC, sessile serrated polyp (SSP) ≥ 10 mm], CRC, and SSP detection after propensity score adjustment using a logistic regression model adjusted for endoscopist. RESULTS: There were 207 patients in the FIT group and 601 in the screening colonoscopy comparison group. After propensity score adjustment, ADR (72.9 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003), number of adenomas per colonoscopy (3.3 ± 3.6 vs. 1.4 ± 2.3, p = 0.033), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (32.4 vs. 11.0%, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the FIT group. There were no significant differences in the number of CRC and the SSP detection rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of average-risk Veterans, the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of a positive FIT was higher than the ADR of screening colonoscopies. Patients with a positive FIT also had significantly more adenomas per colonoscopy and advanced neoplasms. These findings suggest that the quality of colonoscopies performed for a positive FIT is insufficiently assessed by the conventional ADR and requires additional quality metrics.
Authors: Jeffrey K Lee; Elizabeth G Liles; Stephen Bent; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees Journal: Gut Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 23.059
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: Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 22.682
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: 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: Ma Henar Núñez Rodríguez; Pilar Díez Redondo; Fausto Riu Pons; Marta Cimavilla; Luis Hernández; Andrea Loza; Manuel Pérez-Miranda Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.623
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: 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