Sandy Ng1, Aditya K Sreenivasan1, Jillian Pecoriello1, Peter S Liang2,3. 1. Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Peter.Liang@nyulangone.org. 3. Department of Medicine, VA New York Harbor Health Care System, 423 E 23rd St, 11N GI, New York, NY, 10010, USA. Peter.Liang@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a widely accepted quality benchmark for screening colonoscopy but can be burdensome to calculate. Previous studies have shown good correlation between polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, but this has not been validated in trainees. Additionally, the correlation between PDR and detection rates for sessile serrated polyps (SSPDR) and advanced neoplasia (ANDR) is not well studied. AIMS: We investigated the relationship between PDR and ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR in trainees. METHODS: We examined 1600 outpatient colonoscopies performed by 24 trainees at a VA hospital from 2014 to 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, year of fellowship, colonoscopy indication, and endoscopic and histologic findings. We calculated the overall ratios of PDR to ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR to assess the correlation between measured and calculated ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR, which is equivalent to the correlation between PDR and measured ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR. RESULTS: The overall PDR, ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR were 72%, 52%, 2%, and 14%. PDR (48%) was highest in the left colon, while ADR (32%) and ANDR (7%) were highest in the right colon (p < 0.001 for all). The overall ADR/PDR, SSPDR/PDR, and ANDR/PDR ratios were 0.73, 0.03, and 0.20. Correlation between PDR and ADR was highly positive overall (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and stronger in the right (r = 0.91) and transverse (r = 0.94) colon than the left colon (r = 0.80). Correlation between PDR and overall SSPDR and ANDR were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PDR can serve as a surrogate measure of ADR to monitor colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology fellowship.
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a widely accepted quality benchmark for screening colonoscopy but can be burdensome to calculate. Previous studies have shown good correlation between polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, but this has not been validated in trainees. Additionally, the correlation between PDR and detection rates for sessile serrated polyps (SSPDR) and advanced neoplasia (ANDR) is not well studied. AIMS: We investigated the relationship between PDR and ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR in trainees. METHODS: We examined 1600 outpatient colonoscopies performed by 24 trainees at a VA hospital from 2014 to 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, year of fellowship, colonoscopy indication, and endoscopic and histologic findings. We calculated the overall ratios of PDR to ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR to assess the correlation between measured and calculated ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR, which is equivalent to the correlation between PDR and measured ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR. RESULTS: The overall PDR, ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR were 72%, 52%, 2%, and 14%. PDR (48%) was highest in the left colon, while ADR (32%) and ANDR (7%) were highest in the right colon (p < 0.001 for all). The overall ADR/PDR, SSPDR/PDR, and ANDR/PDR ratios were 0.73, 0.03, and 0.20. Correlation between PDR and ADR was highly positive overall (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and stronger in the right (r = 0.91) and transverse (r = 0.94) colon than the left colon (r = 0.80). Correlation between PDR and overall SSPDR and ANDR were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PDR can serve as a surrogate measure of ADR to monitor colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology fellowship.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer screening; Gastroenterology fellow; Quality improvement; Quality metric
Authors: Dawn L Francis; Daniel T Rodriguez-Correa; Anna Buchner; Gavin C Harewood; Michael Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Charles J Kahi; Heiko Pohl; Laura J Myers; Dalia Mobarek; Douglas J Robertson; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erika S Boroff; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Joseph G Hentz; Jonathan A Leighton; Francisco C Ramirez Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Reiko Nishihara; Kana Wu; Paul Lochhead; Teppei Morikawa; Xiaoyun Liao; Zhi Rong Qian; Kentaro Inamura; Sun A Kim; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Yu Imamura; Walter C Willett; Bernard A Rosner; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Giovannucci; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245