P30 Serrated polyp detection rate in bowel cancer screening colonoscopy varies four fold between colonoscopists

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.

Download Full-text

Impact of differences in adenoma and proximal serrated polyp detection rate on the long-term effectiveness of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening

BMC Cancer ◽

10.1186/s12885-018-4375-9 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Maxime E. S. Bronzwaer ◽

Marjolein J. E. Greuter ◽

Arne G. C. Bleijenberg ◽

Joep E. G. IJspeert ◽

Evelien Dekker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Polyp Detection ◽

Serrated Polyp ◽

Polyp Detection Rate

Download Full-text

Screening Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time and Proximal Serrated Polyp Detection Rate: Analysis of a Large, Single, High-Volume Center Using Natural Language Processing: ACG Fellows-In-Training Award

The American Journal of Gastroenterology ◽

10.14309/00000434-201510001-02236 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 110 ◽

pp. S928

Author(s):

Viral Patel ◽

William Thompson ◽

Jay L. Goldstein ◽

Eugene Yen

Keyword(s):

Language Processing ◽

Detection Rate ◽

High Volume ◽

Screening Colonoscopy ◽

Polyp Detection ◽

Withdrawal Time ◽

Rate Analysis ◽

Serrated Polyp ◽

Polyp Detection Rate ◽

High Volume Center

Download Full-text

PWE-003 Variations In Adenoma Detection Rate And Cancer Detection Rate In Individuals From Different Ethnic Groups Undergoing Bowel Cancer Screening Colonoscopy: Abstract PWE-003 Table 1

Gut ◽

10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307263.263 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 63 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. A122.1-A122

Author(s):

A. M. Verma ◽

V. Lewin ◽

A. P. Chilton ◽

J. de Caestecker ◽

A. Dixon ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Screening ◽

Ethnic Groups ◽

Cancer Detection ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Bowel Cancer ◽

Cancer Detection Rate ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Screening Colonoscopy ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Bowel Cancer Screening

Download Full-text

Impact of cumulative experience on the quality of screening colonoscopy: A 13-year observational study

Journal of Medical Screening ◽

10.1177/09691413211009562 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 096914132110095

Author(s):

David N Naumann ◽

Cheryl Kavanagh ◽

Gaynor Hipkiss ◽

Sarah Potter-Concannon ◽

Misra Budhoo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Screening ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Screening Programme ◽

Bowel Cancer ◽

Screening Colonoscopy ◽

Global Rating ◽

Rating Score ◽

Cancer Screening Programme ◽

Bowel Cancer Screening ◽

Over Time

Objective To investigate trends in quality of screening colonoscopy (using the Global Rating Score) in the 13 years since introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Setting An English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy service from 2007 to 2019. Methods A retrospective observational study was undertaken using a prospectively collected database in order to analyse trends in screening endoscopies (including patients following positive faecal occult blood test or with high-risk findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy). The Global Rating Score quality indicators for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy were used as outcome measures, and trends over time were analysed. These included caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, colorectal cancer detection rate, proportion of patients with minimal or mild discomfort scores, proportion of patients who required intravenous sedation, and adverse events. Results There were 5352 colonoscopies included, performed by 3 endoscopists; 73.8% were index procedures (i.e. first Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy) and the remainder were follow-up or surveillance colonoscopies. The mean age of patients was 66 (standard deviation 5) years, and 59.8% were male. Mean age increased over time ( R2=0.033; p < 0.001). There were significant trends over time towards higher caecal intubation rate ( p = 0.015), higher adenoma detection rate ( p < 0.001), lower proportion requiring intravenous sedation ( p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in comfort scores ( p = 0.606), adverse events ( p = 0.503) or colorectal cancer detection ( p = 0.089). Conclusion There was a consistent improvement in the Global Rating Score for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopies since the start of the programme, even when quality was already high at the start. Patients can expect high-quality colonoscopy when participating in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Download Full-text

Increase in Serrated Polyp Detection Rate Over Time in a Cohort of Average Risk Patients Undergoing Screening Colonoscopy

The American Journal of Gastroenterology ◽

10.14309/00000434-200910003-00471 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 104 ◽

pp. S176-S177

Author(s):

Francis Farraye ◽

Christopher Huang ◽

Jeremy Hetzel ◽

Kelsey Omstead ◽

Shi Yang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Detection Rate ◽

Screening Colonoscopy ◽

Average Risk ◽

Polyp Detection ◽

Serrated Polyp ◽

Polyp Detection Rate ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Over Time

Download Full-text

PROXIMAL SERRATED POLYP DETECTION RATE: A COMPLEMENTARY QUALITY INDICATOR FOR ADENOMA DETECTION RATE?

Arquivos de Gastroenterologia ◽

10.1590/s0004-2803.202000000-81 ◽

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 ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Indicator ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Screening Colonoscopy ◽

Polyp Detection ◽

Historical Cohort ◽

Serrated Polyp ◽

Polyp Detection Rate ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Significant Difference

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.

Download Full-text