Literature DB >> 29881618

Importance of endoscopist quality metrics for findings at surveillance colonoscopy: The detection-surveillance paradox.

Carolina Mangas-Sanjuan1, Pedro Zapater2, Joaquín Cubiella3, Óscar Murcia1, Luis Bujanda4, Vicent Hernández5, David Martínez-Ares5, María Pellisé6, Agustín Seoane7, Ángel Lanas8, David Nicolás-Pérez9, Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada10, María Chaparro11, Guillermo Cacho12, Servando Fernández-Díez13, José-Carlos Marín-Gabriel14, Enrique Quintero9, Antoni Castells6, Rodrigo Jover1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies based exclusively on findings at baseline colonoscopy. This recommendation leads to the paradox that the higher the baseline colonoscopy quality, the more surveillance colonoscopies will be indicated according to current guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on follow-up findings of different quality metrics of the endoscopist performing the baseline colonoscopy.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included individuals with advanced adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR) were determined for 44 endoscopists. Surveillance colonoscopies were checked after systematic tracking.
RESULTS: A total of 574 individuals were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, of whom 270 received a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients whose baseline colonoscopy endoscopist had an ADR lower than the median of 33.8% had significantly higher rates of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (13.1% vs 4.0%; p = 0.001). On univariate analysis, high-risk advanced adenomas at baseline (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.97) and ADR (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99) showed a significant relationship with advanced neoplasia at surveillance. In a multivariate Cox model, the ADR of the endoscopist who performed the baseline colonoscopy was the only independent predictor of risk for developing advanced neoplasia at follow-up (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the risk of identifying advanced adenomas at follow-up is closely related to the quality metrics of the endoscopist who performs the baseline colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon cancer; adenoma detection rate; colonoscopy; colonoscopy quality metrics; surveillance

Year:  2017        PMID: 29881618      PMCID: PMC5987282          DOI: 10.1177/2050640617745458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J        ISSN: 2050-6406            Impact factor:   4.623


  19 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal.

Authors:  W S Atkin; R Valori; E J Kuipers; G Hoff; C Senore; N Segnan; R Jover; W Schmiegel; R Lambert; C Pox
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 3.  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

4.  An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Susan G Coe; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  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

6.  Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening.

Authors:  Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells; Luis Bujanda; Joaquín Cubiella; Dolores Salas; Ángel Lanas; Montserrat Andreu; Fernando Carballo; Juan Diego Morillas; Cristina Hernández; Rodrigo Jover; Isabel Montalvo; Juan Arenas; Eva Laredo; Vicent Hernández; Felipe Iglesias; Estela Cid; Raquel Zubizarreta; Teresa Sala; Marta Ponce; Mercedes Andrés; Gloria Teruel; Antonio Peris; María-Pilar Roncales; Mónica Polo-Tomás; Xavier Bessa; Olga Ferrer-Armengou; Jaume Grau; Anna Serradesanferm; Akiko Ono; José Cruzado; Francisco Pérez-Riquelme; Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu; Mariola de la Vega-Prieto; Juana Maria Reyes-Melian; Guillermo Cacho; José Díaz-Tasende; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Carmen Poves; Cecilio Santander; Andrés González-Navarro
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  Jean-François Bretagne; Stéphanie Hamonic; Christine Piette; Sylvain Manfredi; Emmanuelle Leray; Gérard Durand; Françoise Riou
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Rodrigo Jover; Pedro Zapater; Eduardo Polanía; Luis Bujanda; Angel Lanas; José A Hermo; Joaquín Cubiella; Akiko Ono; Yanira González-Méndez; Antonio Peris; María Pellisé; Agustín Seoane; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Marta Ponce; José C Marín-Gabriel; María Chaparro; Guillermo Cacho; Servando Fernández-Díez; Juan Arenas; Federico Sopeña; Luisa de-Castro; Pablo Vega-Villaamil; María Rodríguez-Soler; Fernando Carballo; Dolores Salas; Juan D Morillas; Montserrat Andreu; Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Jover; Pedro Zapater; Luis Bujanda; Vicent Hernández; Joaquín Cubiella; Maria Pellisé; Marta Ponce; Akiko Ono; Angel Lanas; Agustín Seoane; José C Marín-Gabriel; María Chaparro; Guillermo Cacho; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Servando Fernández-Díez; Antonio Peris; David Nicolás-Pérez; Oscar Murcia; Antoni Castells; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; John Anderson; Roland Valori; Ewa Kraszewska; Maciej Rupinski; Jacek Pachlewski; Ewa Wronska; Michael Bretthauer; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaroslaw Regula
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  2 in total

1.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 31.793

2.  Trainee participation during screening colonoscopy does not affect ADR at subsequent surveillance, but may result in early follow-up.

Authors:  Alexander J Eckardt; Joan Kheder; Anjali Basil; Taryn Silverstein; Krunal Patel; Mohamed Mahmoud; Yasir Al-Azzawi; Daniel Ellis; William Gillespie; Yoel Carrasquillo Vega; Sharina D Person; John M Levey
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2020-11-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.