scholarly journals Polyp detection rate: does length matter?

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P Segal ◽  
Cynthia Kanagasundaram ◽  
Philip Mills ◽  
Paul Bassett ◽  
Simon M Greenfield
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Bowel Cancer ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Bowel Cancer Screening ◽  
The Difference

IntroductionPolyp detection rate is a surrogate marker for adenoma detection rate and therefore a surrogate marker of quality colonoscopy. To our knowledge, this is the first study that compares distance from the monitor to the endoscopist on polyp detection rate.MethodsThis was a retrospective study comparing polyp detection rate across two different endoscopy room set-ups. All colonoscopies performed between December 2013 and November 2014 were retrieved. The difference in the room set-up was the distance from the endoscopist to the endoscopy monitor. Room A had a distance of 219 cm and Room B had 147 cm. We used two identical rooms, C and D, as a control arm with a distance of 190 cm between the endoscopist and the monitor.ResultsThere were significant differences in polyp detection rates between Room A and Room B in the bowel cancer screening lists. For these lists, the room with the closest distance from the endoscopist to the monitor (147 cm) had a statistically significant higher polyp detection rate than the room that had a further monitor to endoscopist distance of 219 cm (p<0.0006) and a trend towards a higher polyp detection rate compared with the room where the distance between the monitor and the endoscopist was 190 cm (p=0.08). This effect was not noticed across the service lists.ConclusionsThis study has suggested that the distance from the endoscopist to the monitor can affect polyp detection rate. It appears that for bowel cancer screening lists, the further the endoscopist from the monitor the lower their polyp detection rate.

scholarly journals Gaze patterns hold key to unlocking successful search strategies and increasing polyp detection rate in colonoscopy

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (07) ◽  
pp. 701-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Lami ◽  
Harsimrat Singh ◽  
James Dilley ◽  
Hajra Ashraf ◽  
Matthew Edmondon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Gaze Patterns ◽  
Successful Search ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Important Quality ◽  
Visual Gaze

Abstract Background The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in visual gaze patterns (VGPs) with increasing polyp detection rate (PDR), a surrogate marker of ADR. Methods 18 endoscopists participated in the study. VGPs were measured using eye-tracking technology during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy. VGPs were characterized using two analyses – screen and anatomy. Eye-tracking parameters were used to characterize performance, which was further substantiated using hidden Markov model (HMM) analysis. Results Subjects with higher PDRs spent more time viewing the outer ring of the 3 × 3 grid for both analyses (screen-based: r = 0.56, P = 0.02; anatomy: r = 0.62, P < 0.01). Fixation distribution to the “bottom U” of the screen in screen-based analysis was positively correlated with PDR (r = 0.62, P = 0.01). HMM demarcated the VGPs into three PDR groups. Conclusion This study defined distinct VGPs that are associated with expert behavior. These data may allow introduction of visual gaze training within structured training programs, and have implications for adoption in higher-level assessment.

scholarly journals A120 NO EVIDENCE OF A FRIDAY EFFECT ON COLONOSCOPY QUALITY OUTCOMES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Z Hindi ◽  
L Guizzetti ◽  
S cocco ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
A Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality may be influenced by operator fatigue. Prior studies have shown lower adenoma detection rates for procedures performed at the end of the day. However, it is unknown if colonoscopy quality is impaired at the end of the work week. Aims We investigated whether colonoscopy quality-related metrics differ at the end of the work week using the South West Ontario Colonoscopy Cohort. Methods Between April 2017 to February 2018, 45,510 consecutive colonoscopies from 20 academic and community hospitals in our health region were captured to form the cohort. In Canada, outpatient endoscopies are generally performed between Monday to Friday, taking Friday, or the last business day, as the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the work week. When a statutory holiday occurred on a Friday, Thursday was designated the last day of the work week. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and failed cecal intubation. Outcomes were presented as unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios derived from modified Poisson regression and adjusting for physician-level clustering, and characteristics of the patient (age, sex, severity), procedure (hospital setting, trainee presence, indication, sedation, bowel preparation quality) and physician (experience and specialty). Results During the observation period, 9,132 colonoscopies were performed on the last day of the work week compared to 36,378 procedures during the rest of the work week. No significant difference was observed for ADR (26.4% vs. 26.6%, p=0.75), ssPDR (4.5% vs. 5.0%, p=0.12), PDR (44.1% vs. 43.1%, p=0.081), or failed cecal intubation (2.8% vs. 2.9%, p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the week, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences in the ADR (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.88, 1.15], p=0.94), ssPDR (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.14], p=0.38), PDR (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.92, 1.09], p=0.94), or failed cecal intubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.72, 1.18], p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of week, respectively. Conclusions Colonoscopy quality metrics, including ADR, ssPDR, PDR, and failed cecal intubation are not significantly different at the end of the week. Funding Agencies None

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists’ sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Lesion Detection ◽  
Optical Diagnosis ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Serrated Polyps ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Post Hoc

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.

BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities (the B-ADENOMA Study): a multicentre, randomised controlled flexible sigmoidoscopy trial

Gut ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1959-1965
Author(s):  
Colin J Rees ◽  
Andrew Brand ◽  
Wee Sing Ngu ◽  
Clive Stokes ◽  
Zoe Hoare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Flexible Sigmoidoscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Participant Experience ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population.DesignBowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken.Results3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR.ConclusionEV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further.Trial registration numbersNCT03072472, ISRCTN30005319 and CPMS ID 33224.

scholarly journals Melanosis Coli: A Helpful Contrast Effect or a Harmful Pigmentation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 117955221881732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi Abu Baker ◽  
Amir Mari ◽  
Dan Feldman ◽  
Muhammad Suki ◽  
Oren Gal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Benign Condition ◽  
Melanosis Coli ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection

Background: Melanosis coli, a brown discoloration of colonic mucosa, is considered as a benign condition mainly observed in patients under chronic anthranoid laxatives. Recent data link this condition with an increased adenoma detection rate. Moreover, its tumorigenic potential and possible association with the development of colorectal cancer remains uncertain. We conducted this study to compare the polyp detection rate and colorectal cancer diagnosis in patients with melanosis against matched control group without melanosis. Patients and methods: A retrospective single-center study. Patients diagnosed with melanosis coli on colonoscopy over a 15-year period were included. Each melanosis coli patient was matched with three controls by age, gender, setting (inpatient/outpatient), and procedure’s indication. Polyp detection rate and diagnosis of colorectal cancer were recorded and compared between the groups before and after adjustment for bowel preparation. Results: A cohort of 718 patients with melanosis and 2154 controls were included. The polyp detection rates were 33.4% and 21.8% of melanosis and control groups, respectively ( P < .001). Melanosis coli, however, was associated with less diagnosis of colorectal cancer than controls (0.3% vs 3.9%; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, melanosis diagnosis on endoscopy was significantly associated with higher polyp detection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.986, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.626-2.425; P value < .01). Conclusions: Melanosis coli is not associated with increased diagnosis of colorectal cancer. It is associated, however, with enhanced polyp detection likely due to chromo-endoscopy-like effect.

SP1.1.11Is polyp detection rate a suitable surrogate measure for adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy?

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi ◽  
Isabel Perry ◽  
Rahul Deb ◽  
Gillian Tierney
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Pathology Report ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Inflammatory Polyp ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Surrogate Measure

Abstract Aims The Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) has set key quality indicators for colonoscopy, which includes an adenoma detection rate of a minimum of 15%. Given the difficulty in reporting adenoma detection rate, JAG have stated that polyp detection rate is accepted as a surrogate measure. Our aim was to assess whether polyp detection rate can be used as a substitute marker for adenoma detection, by examining the histology of samples taken as polyps to determine what proportion are truly adenomas. Methods The pathology department provided a registry of all histological samples taken from the colon or rectum during a one-year period April 2017 to April 2018. These samples were cross-referenced with the endoscopy report to assess which were identified as “polyps” by the performing endoscopist. The pathology report was then reviewed to determine what the histological conclusion was for each “polyp”. Results A total of 1601 colorectal histology samples were reviewed, taken by 32 different endoscopists. 451 of these were identified as polyps by the performing endoscopist. On histological review 153 (33.9%) were not adenomas of the colon or rectum. Common alternative histological diagnoses were hyperplastic polyp, inflammatory polyp and normal tissue. Rarer alternative histological diagnoses were melanosis coli, submucosal leiomyoma and endometriosis of the rectum. Conclusions Polyp detection rate which is used as a surrogate marker for adenoma detection rate is an inaccurate measure of colonoscopy quality.

scholarly journals Performance report cards increase adenoma detection rate

2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (07) ◽  
pp. E675-E682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sey ◽  
Andy Liu ◽  
Samuel Asfaha ◽  
Victoria Siebring ◽  
Vipul Jairath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Performance Report ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important measure of colonoscopy quality, as are polyp, advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rates. We investigated whether performance report cards improved these outcome measures. Patients and methods Endoscopists were given report cards comparing their detection rates to the institutional mean on an annual basis. Detection rates were evaluated at baseline, 1 year after report cards (Year 1), and 2 years after report cards (Year 2). Endoscopists were unaware of the study and received no other interventions. The primary outcome was ADR and secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rate. Multivariate regression was performed to adjust for temporal trends in patient, endoscopists, and procedural factors. Results Seventeen physicians performed 3,118 screening colonoscopies in patients with positive FOBT or family history of colon cancer. The ADR increased from 34.5 % (baseline) to 39.4 % (Year 1) and 41.2 % (Year 2) (P = 0.0037). The PDR increased from 45 % (baseline) to 48.8 % (Year 1) and 51.8 % (Year 2) (P = 0.011). There was no significant improvement in advanced ADR or adenocarcinoma detection rates. On multivariate analysis, the ADR increased by 22 % in Year 1 (P = 0.03) and 30 % in Year 2 (P = 0.008). Among physicians with a baseline ADR < 25 %, improvement in ADR was even greater, increasing 2.2 times by the end of the study (P = 0.004). Improvements in ADR were not correlated with specialty although gastroenterologists were 52 % more likely to find an adenoma than general surgeons. Conclusions Annual performance report cards increased adenoma detection rates, especially among physicians with low ADR < 25 %.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document