Adenoma Detection Rate in High Risk Patients Differs from Average Risk Patients: ACG Colorectal Cancer Prevention Award Presidential Poster

2012 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. S802-S803
Author(s):  
Madhusudhan Sanaka ◽  
Tushar Gohel ◽  
Amareshwar Podugu ◽  
Tarun Rai ◽  
Pokala Kiran ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhusudhan R. Sanaka ◽  
Tarun Rai ◽  
Udaykumar Navaneethan ◽  
Tushar D. Gohel ◽  
Amareshwar Podugu ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anas Makhzoum ◽  
Jacob Louw ◽  
William G Paterson

Abstract Background Screening sigmoidoscopy is effective in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer. In 2009, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) launched a nurse-performed screening flexible sigmoidoscopy program at Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston, Ontario. Prior to this program, there was a pilot sigmoidoscopy screening program by gastroenterologists in a similar average risk cohort. Aim To compare neoplasia detection rates and associated costs of screening sigmoidoscopy performed by nurses and gastroenterologists. Method A retrospective chart review was conducted on flexible sigmoidoscopies performed as part of two average risk screening programs performed by gastroenterologists and nurse-endoscopists. Detected polyps were categorized as hyperplastic, low-risk adenomas or high-risk adenomas. Average cost per procedure was estimated based on physician fee for service charges, nurse wage and benefits, physician supervisory fees, pathology costs and administrative expenses. Results There were 538 procedures performed by nurses and 174 by physicians. Adenomas were detected in 18% of nurse-performed procedures versus 9% in physician-performed procedures (p=0.003), with the higher adenoma detection rate restricted to low risk adenomas. One cancer was found in the physician group. Seven physicians performed the 174 sigmoidoscopies, with one physician performing the majority. This physician’s adenoma detection rate was 4.5%, whereas detection rate for the remaining physicians combined was 16.5%. Nurses biopsied more polyps per case (0.96 versus 0.18). Average estimated cost per case was greater for nurses ($387.54 versus $309.37). Conclusion Well-trained nurse-endoscopists can provide an effective service for colorectal cancer screening, but as currently structured in Ontario, the associated cost is higher for nurse-performed procedures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Stefanus Bernard ◽  
Arli Aditya Parikesit

Introduction- Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a development of abnormal cells either in colon or rectum. CRC considered being the 3rd leading cause of death in 2018 only behind lung and breast cancer. It first arises during pre-cancerous stages called as polyps. The detection and removal of polyp is important to increase the survival rate of patient. Various method of polyp detection are available. However, only colonoscopy remains the gold standard in detection and removal of polyps. Several studies showed how Artificial Intelligence (AI) used in colonoscopy area particularly in detecting polyps, assessing physicians and predicting patient with high risk of CRC. The aim of this study is to describe the involvement of AI in colonoscopy and its impact in reducing the Materials and methods– Search for journal articles conducted between May and June 2016 from various resources including PubMed and Google Scholar.  6 research journals were reviewed and all the advantages and limitations were discussed throughout this study. Results– Various study showed that AI able to improve medical diagnostic of CRC in several ways, including in the improvement of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in terms of medical diagnostic, finding physicians associated with high Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and predicting patients with high risk of CRC. In addition, the use of AI in colonoscopy also associated with limitations including require large amount of datasets and advance computational resources in order to generate accurate output. Conclusion– The utilization of AI in colonoscopy shows how it able to improve the diagnosis accuracy and survival rate of patients associated with CRC despite several limitations that were identified during the study. However in the future, instead of allowing it to fully automatically conducting diagnosis, it still needs to be accompanied by physicians conducting the operation as there is no hundred percent perfect algorithms.  


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Waldmann ◽  
H Sinkovec ◽  
G Heinze ◽  
D Penz ◽  
B Majcher ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Abbakar ◽  
T James ◽  
P Boxall ◽  
M Lim

Abstract Introduction Guidelines on the management of hereditary colorectal cancers were updated in 2019. In this study, data from patients within the colonoscopy surveillance programme for hereditary cancer at York Teaching Hospitals Trust were analysed to assess category of risk and appropriateness of referrals to regional geneticists. Method After examination of electronic records and clinical notes, patients were assigned a risk category of average, moderate or high according to the Amsterdam criteria and latest BSG/ACPGBI/UKCGG guidelines. Patients were then assessed to see if a concurrent referral had been made to the regional cancer genetic services. Results There were 228 patients. 72(31.6%) patients were in the average, 81(35.5%) in the moderate and 41(18%) were in the high-risk category. 34 (14.9%) patients with insufficient data and/or assessments were in the indeterminate category. 18 of 72 (25%) patients with average risk were unnecessarily referred to the regional genetics team, while 5/41(12%) of high-risk patients were not. A large proportion of patients with insufficient data (19/34, 55.8%) were rightly or wrongly, referred to the regional genetics team. Conclusions Assessment of hereditary cancer risk is difficult in the absence of good quality information. Risk assessment may be improved with use of a dedicated family history questionnaire/template - this facilitates identification of high-risk patients that benefit most from referral to geneticists.


2017 ◽  
Vol 85 (5) ◽  
pp. AB544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malav P. Parikh ◽  
Vaibhav Wadhwa ◽  
Yash Jobanputra ◽  
Kushal Naha ◽  
Prashanthi N. Thota ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Si-Yuan Chen ◽  
Siyu Chen ◽  
Wanjing Feng ◽  
Ziteng Li ◽  
Yixiao Luo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document