Vaibhav Wadhwa1, Yash Jobanputra2, Haider Al Taii2, Prashanthi N Thota2, Rocio Lopez3, Suryakanth R Gurudu4, Madhusudhan R Sanaka5,6. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Cleveland, OH, USA. sanakam@ccf.org. 6. Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Desk Q3, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. sanakam@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a validated quality indicator (QI) of colonoscopy, does not take into account risk stratification of adenomas. Low-risk adenomas are not associated with a significantly increased risk of future colorectal cancer (CRC). On the other hand, high-risk adenomas (HRA) are associated with up to six fold higher risk of future CRC. Therefore, HRA detection rate (HR-ADR) as a QI in addition to ADR may further enhance the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Our aim was to calculate ADR and HR-ADR in a large cohort of average risk screening colonoscopy patients and propose HR-ADR which correlates with current threshold ADR. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all colonoscopies performed in patients aged ≥ 50 years at our institution between 2012 and 2014. Average risk patients who had complete colonoscopy with good, excellent and adequate bowel preparation were included. Overall and gender-specific ADR and HR-ADR were calculated. HR-ADR was defined as proportion of colonoscopies with HRA. RESULTS: Among 4158 colonoscopies included, ADR was 26.4 ± 10.9% overall, 32.7 ± 14.5% in men, and 22.1 ± 12.6% in women. HR-ADR was 8.0 ± 5.7% overall, 10.2 ± 8.6% in men, and 6.1 ± 6% in women. There was only moderate correlation between ADR and HR-ADR [r = 0.57 (0.40-0.70)]. HR-ADR corresponding with minimum threshold ADR of 30% in men and 20% in women were calculated to be 7% in men and 4% in women. CONCLUSIONS: HR-ADR correlates only moderately with ADR. Based on the current threshold ADRs, we propose a benchmark HR-ADR of 7% in men and 4% in women as complementary QI to ADR.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a validated quality indicator (QI) of colonoscopy, does not take into account risk stratification of adenomas. Low-risk adenomas are not associated with a significantly increased risk of future colorectal cancer (CRC). On the other hand, high-risk adenomas (HRA) are associated with up to six fold higher risk of future CRC. Therefore, HRA detection rate (HR-ADR) as a QI in addition to ADR may further enhance the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Our aim was to calculate ADR and HR-ADR in a large cohort of average risk screening colonoscopy patients and propose HR-ADR which correlates with current threshold ADR. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all colonoscopies performed in patients aged ≥ 50 years at our institution between 2012 and 2014. Average risk patients who had complete colonoscopy with good, excellent and adequate bowel preparation were included. Overall and gender-specific ADR and HR-ADR were calculated. HR-ADR was defined as proportion of colonoscopies with HRA. RESULTS: Among 4158 colonoscopies included, ADR was 26.4 ± 10.9% overall, 32.7 ± 14.5% in men, and 22.1 ± 12.6% in women. HR-ADR was 8.0 ± 5.7% overall, 10.2 ± 8.6% in men, and 6.1 ± 6% in women. There was only moderate correlation between ADR and HR-ADR [r = 0.57 (0.40-0.70)]. HR-ADR corresponding with minimum threshold ADR of 30% in men and 20% in women were calculated to be 7% in men and 4% in women. CONCLUSIONS: HR-ADR correlates only moderately with ADR. Based on the current threshold ADRs, we propose a benchmark HR-ADR of 7% in men and 4% in women as complementary QI to ADR.
Authors: Farhat V N Din; Evropi Theodoratou; Susan M Farrington; Albert Tenesa; Rebecca A Barnetson; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Lesley Stark; Mary E Porteous; Harry Campbell; Malcolm G Dunlop Journal: Gut Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: M Anti; A Armuzzi; S Morini; E Iascone; G Pignataro; C Coco; R Lorenzetti; M Paolucci; M Covino; A Gasbarrini; F Vecchio; G Gasbarrini Journal: Gut Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; E Robert Greenberg; Michael Beach; Robert S Sandler; Dennis Ahnen; Robert W Haile; Carol A Burke; Dale C Snover; Robert S Bresalier; Gail McKeown-Eyssen; Jack S Mandel; John H Bond; Rosalind U Van Stolk; Robert W Summers; Richard Rothstein; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Tim Byers; Leila Mott; John A Baron Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jolanda de Boer; Bruce H Fireman; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Nirupa R Ghai; Theodore R Levin; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 91.245