scholarly journals Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 74-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu ◽  
Gurfarmaan Singh ◽  
Khizar Rana ◽  
Masanao Nakamura ◽  
Takeshi Yamamura ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Tian ◽  
Ling-Li Xu ◽  
Xiao-Ling Liu ◽  
Wei-Qing Chen

BACKGROUND To improve patients’ comprehension of bowel preparation instructions before colonoscopy, enhanced patient education (EPE) such as cartoon pictures or other visual aids, phone calls, mobile apps, multimedia education and social media apps have been proposed. However, it is uncertain whether EPE can increase the detection rate of colonic polyps and adenomas. OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EPE in detecting colonic polyps and adenomas. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to June 2019 for the identification of trials comparing the EPE with standard patient education for outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. We used a random effects model to calculate summary estimates of the polyp detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), advanced adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one advanced adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one sessile serrated adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), cancer detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one cancer divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), or adenoma detection rate - plus (defined as the number of additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy). Moreover, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine the robustness of summary estimates of all primary outcomes. RESULTS We included 10 randomized controlled trials enrolling 4560 participants for analysis. The meta-analysis suggested that EPE was associated with an increased polyp detection rate (9 trials; 3781 participants; risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35; <i>P</i>&lt;.05; I<sup>2</sup>=42%) and adenoma detection rate (5 trials; 2133 participants; RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.64; <i>P</i>&lt;.001; I2=0%), which were established by TSA. Pooled result from the inverse-variance model illustrated an increase in the sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (3 trials; 1248 participants; odds ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.22-2.53; <i>P</i>&lt;.05; I<sup>2</sup>=0%). One trial suggested an increase in the adenoma detection rate - plus (RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.91-6.61; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Pooled estimates from 3 (1649 participants) and 2 trials (1375 participants) generated no evidence of statistical difference for the advanced adenoma detection rate and cancer detection rate, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The current evidence indicates that EPE should be recommended to instruct bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy because it can increase the polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate. However, further trials are warranted to determine the efficacy of EPE for advanced adenoma detection rate, adenoma detection rate - plus, and cancer detection rate because of limited data.


2017 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. S127-S128
Author(s):  
Suhag Patel ◽  
Wissam Kiwan ◽  
Hala Nas ◽  
Sachin Goyal ◽  
Stephanie Judd ◽  
...  

10.2196/17372 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. e17372
Author(s):  
Xu Tian ◽  
Ling-Li Xu ◽  
Xiao-Ling Liu ◽  
Wei-Qing Chen

Background To improve patients’ comprehension of bowel preparation instructions before colonoscopy, enhanced patient education (EPE) such as cartoon pictures or other visual aids, phone calls, mobile apps, multimedia education and social media apps have been proposed. However, it is uncertain whether EPE can increase the detection rate of colonic polyps and adenomas. Objective This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EPE in detecting colonic polyps and adenomas. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception to June 2019 for the identification of trials comparing the EPE with standard patient education for outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. We used a random effects model to calculate summary estimates of the polyp detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), advanced adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one advanced adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one sessile serrated adenoma divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), cancer detection rate (defined as the number of patients with at least one cancer divided by the total number of patients undergoing selective colonoscopy), or adenoma detection rate - plus (defined as the number of additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy). Moreover, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to determine the robustness of summary estimates of all primary outcomes. Results We included 10 randomized controlled trials enrolling 4560 participants for analysis. The meta-analysis suggested that EPE was associated with an increased polyp detection rate (9 trials; 3781 participants; risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35; P<.05; I2=42%) and adenoma detection rate (5 trials; 2133 participants; RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.64; P<.001; I2=0%), which were established by TSA. Pooled result from the inverse-variance model illustrated an increase in the sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (3 trials; 1248 participants; odds ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.22-2.53; P<.05; I2=0%). One trial suggested an increase in the adenoma detection rate - plus (RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.91-6.61; P<.001). Pooled estimates from 3 (1649 participants) and 2 trials (1375 participants) generated no evidence of statistical difference for the advanced adenoma detection rate and cancer detection rate, respectively. Conclusions The current evidence indicates that EPE should be recommended to instruct bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy because it can increase the polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate. However, further trials are warranted to determine the efficacy of EPE for advanced adenoma detection rate, adenoma detection rate - plus, and cancer detection rate because of limited data.


2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. E322-E334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisaku Fujimoto ◽  
Naoki Muguruma ◽  
Koichi Okamoto ◽  
Yasuteru Fujino ◽  
Kaizo Kagemoto ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Although new image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) technologies such as blue laser imaging (BLI), BLI-bright, and linked color imaging (LCI) have been developed, their utility for the detection of sessile serrated adenoma/polyps (SSA/Ps) is still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of BLI, BLI-bright, and LCI for SSA/P detection in still image examinations and in a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients and methods A group of 6 expert and non-expert endoscopists read 200 endoscopic still images containing SSA/P lesions using white light image (WLI), BLI, BLI-bright, and LCI. Color differences were calculated using the color space method. A prospective RCT of tandem colonoscopy with WLI and LCI was performed. Patients with SSA/P and those with a history of SSA/P that had been endoscopically removed were enrolled and randomly allocated to WLI-LCI or LCI-WLI groups. Additional endoscopic detection rates for SSA/P were compared between the 2 groups. Results LCI showed the highest SSA/P detection rate among the 4 modes for both expert and non-expert endoscopists. The detection rate with LCI for the 6 expert endoscopists (mean 98.3 ± standard deviation 2.0 %) was significantly higher than that with WLI (86.7 ± 6.0 %, P < 0.01). Likewise, the detection rate with LCI for the 6 non-expert endoscopists (92.3 ± 2.9 %) was significantly higher than that with WLI (72.7 ± 11.5 %, P < 0.01). The color difference of SSA/P with LCI was the highest among the 4 modes, and was significantly higher than with WLI (median 15.9, (interquartile range 13.7 – 20.6) vs. 10.2, (7.6 – 14.2); P < 0.0001). In the RCT, a total of 44 patients (WLI-LCI 22 vs. LCI-WLI 22) underwent colonoscopy. The additional detection rate for SSA/P in the second inspection in the WLI-LCI group (21.6 %, 8/37) was significantly higher than in the LCI-WLI group (3.2 %, 1/31; P = 0.02). The small, flat, non-mucus and isochromatic SSA/Ps in the transverse colon were detected more frequently in the second inspection with LCI. Conclusions LCI was the most sensitive mode for SSA/P detection among WLI, BLI, BLI-bright, and LCI in the still image examinations. Our RCT strongly suggests that LCI is superior to conventional WLI for SSA/P detection during colonoscopy. UMIN000017599.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Z Hindi ◽  
L Guizzetti ◽  
S cocco ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
A Wilson ◽  
...  

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


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document