Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and the association with endoscopic findings in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Denmark, with a 5-year mortality of 40%. To reduce CRC incidence and mortality, a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programme was introduced in 2014. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an established quality marker inversely associated with post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC), but evidence mainly stems from non-FIT populations. Using ADR in a FIT-based setting may be costly due to histopathological examination. Alternative markers like polyp detection rate (PDR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) could be viable but lack evidence for their association with PCCRC.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide cohort study of 77 009 FIT-positive participants undergoing colonoscopy (2014-2017). National registry data on CRC outcomes were linked, and endoscopy units were grouped by ADR, PDR and SDR levels. Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities was used to assess PCCRC risk.

RESULTS

Among 70 009 colonoscopies within 6 months of FIT positivity, 4401 (92.7%) had CRC, while 342 (7.2%) were PCCRC cases. PCCRC risk was inversely associated with ADR, PDR and SDR. High ADR endoscopy units had a 35% lower PCCRC risk than low ADR units. Similar associations were found for PDR and SDR, with high SDR units showing a 33% lower PCCRC risk than low SDR units.

CONCLUSIONS

ADR, PDR and SDR predict PCCRC risk, with SDR emerging as a feasible, cost-efficient quality marker in FIT-based screening. This study supports SDR as a primary performance indicator in future protocols.

Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 (n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

Endoscopy Unit Level Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely correlated with the risk of interval colon cancer and is a key target for quality improvement in endoscopy units. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that can be implemented at the endoscopy unit level to improve ADRs.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between January 1990 and December 2022 to identify relevant studies. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were eligible. Data for the primary outcome of ADR were analyzed and reported on the log-odds scale with 95% CIs using a random-effects meta-analysis model using the empiric Bayes estimator.

RESULTS

From 10,778 initial citations, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis comprising 371,041 procedures and 1501 endoscopists. The provision of report cards (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001) and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .002) were associated with significant increases in ADRs whereas multimodal interventions were borderline significant (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.40; P = .05) and withdrawal time monitoring was not associated significantly with an increase in ADRs (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.93-1.96; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of report cards and the presence of an additional observer to identify polyps are associated with improved ADRs and should be considered for implementation in endoscopy facilities.

Colonoscopy performance monitoring: do we need to adjust for case mix?

INTRODUCTION

Overall caecum intubation rate(oCIR) and overall polyp detection rate(oPDR) have been proposed as performance indicators, but varying complexity in case mix among endoscopists may potentially affect validity. The study aims to explore the effect of adjusting for case mix on individual endoscopist performance by calculating case mix-adjusted performance estimates (cmCIR and cmPDR) and comparing them to overall performance estimates (oCIR and oPDR). The study also provides an R program for case mix analysis.

METHODS

Logistic regression associated endoscopist, colonoscopy indication, patient age and patient gender with the binary outcomes of cecum intubation and polyp detection. Case mix-adjusted performance indicators were calculated for each endoscopist based on logistic regression and bootstraps. Endoscopists were ranked from best to worst by overall and case mix-adjusted performance estimates, and differences were evaluated using percentage points(pp) and rank changes.

RESULTS

The dataset consisted of 7376 colonoscopies performed by 47 endoscopists. The maximum rank change for an endoscopist comparing oCIR and cmCIR was eight positions, interquartile range (IQR 1-3). The maximum change in CIR was 1.95 percentage point (pp) (IQR 0.27-0.86). The maximum rank change in the oPDR versus cmPDR analysis was 17 positions (IQR 1.5-8.5). The maximum change in PDR was 11.21 pp (IQR 2.05-6.70). Three endoscopists improved their performance from significantly inferior to within the 95% confidence interval (CI) range of performance targets using case mix-adjusted estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of endoscopists were unaffected by adjustment for case mix, but a few unfortunate endoscopists had an unfavourable case mix that could invite incorrect suspicion of inferior performance.

Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

The conversion factor for predicting adenoma detection rate from polyp detection rate varies according to colonoscopy indication and patient sex

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the primary quality indicator for colonoscopies. The polyp detection rate (PDR) is available from administrative data and does not depend on histology verification. The correlation between PDR and ADR and the ADR/PDR conversion factor in preventive colonoscopies were evaluated. In the prospective study, asymptomatic individuals aged 45-75 years with preventive colonoscopy in 2012-2016 were included. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess PDR/ADR for each endoscopist. Conversion factor predicting ADR from PDR was obtained by linear regression and subsequently compared with adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient. One thousand six hundred fourteen preventive colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists in 8 screening colonoscopy centres in the Czech Republic were analysed. Correlation between PDR and ADR in all preventive colonoscopies was high and statistically significant (Rs 0.82; P < 0.001). There was a strong correlation between PDR and ADR in men (Rs 0.74; P = 0.002) and in screening colonoscopies (Rs 0.85; P < 0.001). The conversion factor to convert ADR from PDR was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies, 0.76 in FOBT+ colonoscopies and 0.67 in screening colonoscopies. ADR may be replaced by PDR in the assessment of colonoscopy quality. The value of the conversion factor varies according to colonoscopy indication and gender of examined individuals; in this Czech study, it was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies. The minimum requested ADR of 25 % corresponds to a PDR of 35 %, when converted with the appropriate conversion factor.

Weekend and evening planned colonoscopy activity: a safe and effective way to meet demands

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy is the "gold standard" investigation for assessment of the large bowel that detects and prevents colorectal cancer, as well as non-neoplastic conditions. The Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends monitoring key performance indicators such as cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We aimed to investigate the quality of colonoscopies carried out during evening and Saturday lists in our unit and compare them against JAG standards of quality for colonoscopies. Patients and methods  We retrospectively collected and analyzed demographical and procedure-related data for non-screening colonoscopies performed between January 2016 and November 2018. Evenings and Saturdays were defined as the out-of-hour (OOH) period. We compared the outcomes of the procedures done in these against the working hours of the weekdays. We also wanted to explore whether the outcomes were different among certain endoscopists. Other factors that could affect the KPIs, such as endoscopist experience and bowel preparation, were also analyzed. Results  There were a total of 17634 colonoscopies carried out; 56.9 % of the patients (n = 10041) < 70 years old. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of weekday, evening, and Saturday colonoscopies regarding the CIR and ADR met the JAG standards as they were above 93 % and 24 %, respectively. Advanced colonoscopists had better KPIs when compared to the non-advanced colonoscopists, with CIR at 97.6 % vs. 93.2 % and ADR at 40.8 % vs. 26 %, respectively. Conclusions  JAG standards were maintained during colonoscopies done on weekdays, evenings, and Saturdays. Advanced colonoscopists had higher CIR and ADRs.

Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND & GOALS

We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.

Afro-Caribbeans Have a Lower Prevalence of Advanced Colon Neoplasia than African-Americans

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The black population in the USA is a heterogeneous group composed of smaller subgroups from different origins. The definition of black in many colorectal cancer (CRC) risk studies is vague, and differences in CRC risk comparing black subpopulations have not been evaluated. The aim of the study is to compare advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) between two subgroups of black populations: African-American (AA) and Afro-Caribbean (AC). A secondary aim was to determine whether there are differences in prevalence of adenomas.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 3797 AA and AC patients undergoing first time screening colonoscopy in two different institutions in the USA.

RESULTS

Overall adenoma prevalence was 29.3% for the entire population with 29.5% in AAs and 29.0% in AC with no statistically significant difference between the study groups (AOR: 1.02; 95% CI 0.88-1.18, P = 0.751). However, ACN was significantly higher in the AA group (11.8%) compared to AC (9.0%) (AOR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.66, P = 0.034). It was observed that AAs had ACN at a higher BMI than AC. After adjusting for BMI/ethnicity interactions, the difference in ACN between both groups became more significant (AOR: 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.23, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

AAs have a higher risk of ACN than AC. Current recommendations to start screening in average-risk AAs at an earlier age may not apply to other black subgroups.

Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The audit process may help improve performance indicators for colonoscopy quality but it is unclear whether this is sustained over several years.

METHODS

44138 procedures for 28 endoscopists from 2004 to 2019 were analysed for polyp detection rate and withdrawal time. From 2012, 14 endoscopists were analysed with additional data on polyp histology and number of polyps removed.

RESULTS

Polyp detection increased from 40.7% in 2004 to 62.2% in 2019; removal of polyps>1 cm remained constant (11%). Adenoma detection rate was 25.8% in 2012 and 28.3% in 2019. Sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection rate increased from 4.5% to 14.7%; most of the increase was in the first 2 years of the histology part of the audit. There was a significant correlation of adenoma detection rate with mean number of adenomas (r=0.72, p=0.004) and a significant correlation of SSP detection with mean number of SSPs (r=0.85, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The audit process appears to encourage a higher rate of polyp detection. This was due to increased detection of smaller polyps and increased detection of SSPs.

Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous reports have suggested that a longer withdrawal time (WT) during colonoscopy led to an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR); however, there are few controlled studies that substantiated monitoring WT as an educational method. We aimed to validate a feedback and monitoring system to improve the ADR in screening colonoscopy in a prospective case-control setting.

METHODS

After collecting data in the pre-feedback period (3.5 months), the individual performance and the average ADR and WT values of the facility were provided to 6 endoscopists in the intervention group, while 3 endoscopists were isolated as the control group during the feedback period (2 weeks). The intervention group consisted of two subgroups, the Fast and Slow WT groups, according to the results from the pre-feedback period. The endoscopists in the intervention group were instructed to be aware of their own WT in each examination during the post-feedback period (4 months). The performances of all endoscopists in the post-feedback period were analyzed and compared with those in the pre-feedback period.

RESULTS

Among the initial analyses, the correlation analysis and multivariate analysis revealed that WT was an independent predictor for the ADR (P = 0.0101). After providing individual performance feedback and instruction regarding real-time WT monitoring, the WT was significantly prolonged in the Fast WT group (P = 0.0346) but did not change in the Slow WT and control groups. In addition, the ADR of the Fast WT group significantly improved after the intervention (P = 0.024), whereas the ADR of the Slow WT and control groups did not change.

CONCLUSION

Providing individual feedback on ADR and WT and monitoring WT helped improve the endoscopists' ADRs.

Morning versus afternoon adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality marker of colonoscopy and operator performance. Prior studies evaluating the effect of an extended workday on the ADR reported variable outcomes that remain controversial. Given the variable results of prior studies and the potential legal implications of reduced ADR in the afternoon, we aimed to further evaluate this parameter and its effect on ADR. We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the morning session and the afternoon session. Afternoon sessions included both sessions following a morning shift and half-day block shifts. Subgroup analyses were performed for ADR comparing morning and afternoon colonoscopies in a continuous workday, advanced ADRs (AADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were also compared. Thirteen articles with 17 341 (61.2%) performed in the morning session and 10 994 (38.8%) performed in the afternoon session were included in this study. There was no statistical significance in the ADR or AADR between morning and afternoon sessions, respectively [relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.14] and (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.5). Afternoon procedures had a significantly higher PDR than morning procedures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98). ADR was not significantly influenced in the afternoon session when operators continued to perform procedures throughout the day or on a half-day block schedule.

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

Introduction

Quality measures for colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been proposed to be surveilled for ensuring minimum standards. However, its direct measurement is time consuming and often neglected. Extrapolating ADR and other quality measures from polyp detection rate (PDR) can be a pragmatic alternative.

Objective

To determine quotients for estimating ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) from PDR in an Australian cohort.

Methods

Consecutive adult patient colonoscopies during a 1-year period were retrospectively assessed in a single Australian tertiary endoscopy center. Adenoma detection quotient (ADQ) and SSA/P detection quotient (SSA/P-DQ) were defined as the division of ADR and SSA/P-DR by PDR, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of procedures to achieve a stable cumulative ADQ and SSA/P-DQ. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of ADQ and SSA/P-DQ in different subsets.

Results

In total, 2,657 colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists in 2016. The ADR, SSA/P-DR, and PDR found were 32.2, 6.7, and 47.3%, respectively. The ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values found were 0.68 and 0.14, respectively. After approximately 500 procedures, both ADQ and SSA/P-DQ became stable. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the prediction of ADR from ADQ was excellent for all endoscopists that performed >177 procedures in that year (ICC 0.84).

Conclusions

ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values were consistent when over 500 procedures were analyzed. ADQ had an excellent correlation with ADR when >177 procedures per endoscopist were evaluated.

Impact of moderate versus deep sedation on adenoma detection rate in index average-risk screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The debate between moderate sedation versus deep sedation for index average-risk screening colonoscopies is well known to gastroenterologists. Ensuring the best of all metrics to perform quality colonoscopies for colon cancer prevention is paramount for both patients and physicians alike, because colon cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death and is the most-used screening tool in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine if moderate sedation versus deep sedation affects outcomes of adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) in index, average-risk colonoscopies for colon cancer screening.

METHODS

A retrospective, single, tertiary care outpatient center study of 585 healthy average-risk patients who underwent index screening colonoscopy between June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (moderate sedation only) and June 1, 2016,to December 31, 2016 (deep sedation only) was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. Demographic data and polyp details were collected to determine ADR and PDR. Patients who were not average risk were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 585 index average-risk screening colonoscopies were included in this study with 57.7% moderate sedation and 42.2% deep sedation. Neither ADR nor PDR was significantly different between the 2 groups (44.1% vs 38.5% [P = .18] and 71.9% vs 67.6% [P = .27], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In index average-risk screening colonoscopies, deep sedation appears to have no benefit compared with moderate sedation for ADR and PDR.

Data quality and colonoscopy performance indicators in the prevalent round of a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program

Objective: From the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, we aimed (i) to evaluate the quality of recorded data and (ii) to characterize the colonoscopies by measuring variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists and assessing the ratio between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Materials and methods: This study included screening colonoscopies performed in Central Denmark Region within 60 days of a positive FIT-result from 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017. The participants were the colonoscopists, performing these procedures. The quality indicators cecal intubation rate (CIR), PDR, polyp retrieval rate (PRR), ADR and withdrawal time (WT) were evaluated. ADR/PDR ratios were calculated. Results: The concordance between the recorded data and the colonoscopy reports showed Kappa values in the range of 0.47-0.97. The overall CIR was 90.6% (range 73.7%-100%), PDR: 51.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%), PRR: 94.6% (range 69.6%-100%), ADR (conventional adenomas): 50.6% (range 18.4%-70.2%), ADRx (conventional adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas and sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia): 50.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%) and the mean WT was 11.3 min (range 4.5-24.9 min). The ADR/PDR ratio was 92.8% (95% CI: 92.0%-93.6%) and the ADRx/PDR ratio was 93.2% (95% CI: 92.4%-93.9%). Conclusion: Data quality was generally high. We found considerable variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists reflecting the potential for improvement. Further, our findings revealed that the PDR might be a good proxy for ADR in the context of the prevalent round of FIT-based CRC screening programs.