Cassandra D L Fritz1, Zachary L Smith2, Jeffrey Elsner2, Thomas Hollander2, Dayna Early2, Vladimir Kushnir3. 1. Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8124, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8124, St. Louis, MO, USA. vkushnir@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between withdrawal time and adenoma detection has been established; however, the effect of cecal insertion time on adenoma detection remains unclear. AIM: To determine the association between cecal insertion time and adenoma detection. METHODS: This study completed a retrospective analysis of data collected in 4 prospective randomized-controlled trials related to screening and surveillance colonoscopy at a single tertiary care from 2010 to 2016. The primary outcome was cecal insertion time and its association with mean number of adenomas per patient and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: 1303 patients met inclusion criteria (average age 59.7 ± 8.7 years; 759 females (58.3%), and 763 Caucasians (58.6%). Mean cecal insertion time was significantly longer in patients who were female (p < 0.001), received moderate sedation (p = 0.001), had fellow involvement (p < 0.001), older (p = 0.002), and lower Boston bowel preparation scale (p < 0.001). Withdrawal time was found to increase as mean cecal insertion time increased (p < 0.001). The mean cecal insertion time was not different in patients with or without adenomas (p = 0.94). Cecal insertion time did not correlate with the mean number of adenomas or advanced adenomas per patient (p > 0.05), which was also true on Poisson regression analysis. Adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient were found to decrease when cecal insertion to withdrawal time ratios were greater than 1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged cecal insertion time was not associated with a decrease in ADR, mean number of adenomas or advanced adenomas per patient. When withdrawal times were longer than cecal insertion times, the number of adenomas and advanced adenomas detected per patient was significantly improved.
BACKGROUND: The association between withdrawal time and adenoma detection has been established; however, the effect of cecal insertion time on adenoma detection remains unclear. AIM: To determine the association between cecal insertion time and adenoma detection. METHODS: This study completed a retrospective analysis of data collected in 4 prospective randomized-controlled trials related to screening and surveillance colonoscopy at a single tertiary care from 2010 to 2016. The primary outcome was cecal insertion time and its association with mean number of adenomas per patient and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: 1303 patients met inclusion criteria (average age 59.7 ± 8.7 years; 759 females (58.3%), and 763 Caucasians (58.6%). Mean cecal insertion time was significantly longer in patients who were female (p < 0.001), received moderate sedation (p = 0.001), had fellow involvement (p < 0.001), older (p = 0.002), and lower Boston bowel preparation scale (p < 0.001). Withdrawal time was found to increase as mean cecal insertion time increased (p < 0.001). The mean cecal insertion time was not different in patients with or without adenomas (p = 0.94). Cecal insertion time did not correlate with the mean number of adenomas or advanced adenomas per patient (p > 0.05), which was also true on Poisson regression analysis. Adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient were found to decrease when cecal insertion to withdrawal time ratios were greater than 1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged cecal insertion time was not associated with a decrease in ADR, mean number of adenomas or advanced adenomas per patient. When withdrawal times were longer than cecal insertion times, the number of adenomas and advanced adenomas detected per patient was significantly improved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenoma detection; Cecal insertion time; Colorectal cancer prevention; Screening colonoscopy; Withdrawal time
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Paulina Wieszczy; Maciej Rupinski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Ewa Kraszewska; Jaroslaw Kobiela; Robert Franczyk; Maria Rupinska; Bartlomiej Kocot; Anna Chaber-Ciopinska; Jacek Pachlewski; Marcin Polkowski; Jaroslaw Regula Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Alexander Lee; John M Iskander; Nitin Gupta; Brian B Borg; Gary Zuckerman; Bhaskar Banerjee; C Prakash Gyawali Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alexander Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Virginia P Quinn; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Suryakanth R Gurudu; Shiva K Ratuapli; Jonathan A Leighton; Russell I Heigh; Michael D Crowell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-19 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: Hongha T Vu; Gregory S Sayuk; Thomas G Hollander; Jennifer Clebanoff; Steven A Edmundowicz; Chandra P Gyawali; Erik P Thyssen; Leonard B Weinstock; Dayna S Early Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702