scholarly journals Mo1696 DERIVING THE OPTIMAL SERRATED POLYP DETECTION RATE BASED ON THE ADENOMA DETECTION DATA IN AVERAGE RISK COLORECTAL SCREENING COHORT

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. AB482-AB483
Author(s):  
Jagpal S. Klair ◽  
Munish Ashat ◽  
Kaartik Soota ◽  
Sumant Arora ◽  
Randhir Jesudoss ◽  
...  
Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (01) ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Jagpal S. Klair ◽  
Munish Ashat ◽  
Dane Johnson ◽  
Sumant Arora ◽  
Nirmal Onteddu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Interval colorectal cancers may be associated with a low serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We aimed to determine the SDR and AADR for endoscopists in a United States multicenter cohort. Methods We included average-risk screening colonoscopies from five medical centers in the United States. Endoscopists with data on at least 100 average-risk screening colonoscopies were included. We calculated median SDR and AADR for endoscopists with adequate adenoma detection rates (ADRs) > 25 %. We analyzed the relationship between ADR and SDR, and between ADR and AADR using nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and linear regression. Results We included 3513 screening colonoscopies performed by 26 gastroenterologists. The mean age of patients was 56.8 years (SD 7.4) and 1585 (45 %) were male. All but one endoscopist had an ADR above 25 %. There was a significant positive but modest correlation between ADR and SDR (rho = 0.67, P < 0.01), and between ADR and AADR (rho = 0.56, P < 0.01). For endoscopists with an adequate ADR, median (interquartile range) ADR was 43 % (32.0 % – 48.6 %), median SDR was 8.4 % (7.3 % – 11.4 %), and median AADR was 9.3 % (6.4 % – 12.6 %). Conclusion A significant percentage of endoscopists have either a low SDR or low AADR despite an adequate ADR, justifying the need for separate SDR and AADR benchmarks. Based on our multicenter cohort, endoscopists with adequate ADRs had a median SDR and median AADR of about 8 % and 9 %, respectively.


2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 3579-3588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryan Cavicchi ◽  
Gaëlle Tharsis ◽  
Pascal Burtin ◽  
Philippe Cattan ◽  
Franck Venezia ◽  
...  

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (09) ◽  
pp. 763-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxime E. S. Bronzwaer ◽  
Jasper L. A. Vleugels ◽  
Sascha C. van Doorn ◽  
Marcel G. W. Dijkgraaf ◽  
Paul Fockens ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps. Methods We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient. Results 24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % – 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % – 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % – 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % – 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (−0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (−0.12; P = 0.57). Conclusions In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.


2009 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. S176-S177
Author(s):  
Francis Farraye ◽  
Christopher Huang ◽  
Jeremy Hetzel ◽  
Kelsey Omstead ◽  
Shi Yang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-470
Author(s):  
Fernando Antônio Vieira LEITE ◽  
Luiz Cláudio Miranda ROCHA ◽  
Rodrigo Roda Rodrigues SILVA ◽  
Eduardo Garcia VILELA ◽  
Luiz Ronaldo ALBERTI ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends on quality indicators, which adenoma detection rate (ADR) being the most important. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate (pSPDR) has been studied as a potential quality indicator for colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to analyze and compare the difference in ADR and pSPDR between patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and an unselected population with other indications for colonoscopy, including surveillance and diagnosis. METHODS: This is a historical cohort of patients who underwent colonoscopy in the digestive endoscopy service of a tertiary hospital. Out of 1554 colonoscopies performed, 573 patients were excluded. The remaining 981 patients were divided into two groups: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy (n=428; 43.6%); patients with other indications including surveillance and diagnosis (n=553; 56.4%). RESULTS: Adenoma detection rate of the group with other indications (50.6%) was higher than that of the screening group (44.6%; P=0.03). In regarding pSPDR, there was no difference between pSPDR in both groups (screening 13.6%; other indications 13.7%; P=0.931). There was no significant difference in the mean age (P=0.259) or in the proportion of men and women (P=0.211) between both groups. CONCLUSION: Proximal serrated polyp detection rate showed an insignificant difference between groups with different indications and could be used as a complementary indicator to adenoma detection rate. This could benefit colonoscopists with low colonoscopy volume or low volume of screening colonoscopies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. S-54-S-55
Author(s):  
Jagpal S. Klair ◽  
Munish Ashat ◽  
Sumant Arora ◽  
Nirmal Onteddu ◽  
Jose G. Machain Palacio ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. S133
Author(s):  
Rajesh Keswani ◽  
Joanne Prinz ◽  
Rena Yadlapati ◽  
Michael Manka ◽  
David Grande ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document