Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(02): E216-E223
DOI: 10.1055/a-1321-0990
Original article

Predictive factors for adenoma detection rates: a video study of endoscopist practices

Sun Young Yang
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Susan Y. Quan
2   Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, United States
3   Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
,
Shai Friedland
2   Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, United States
3   Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
,
Jennifer Y. Pan
2   Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, United States
3   Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims In 2015, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy deemed adenoma detection rate (ADR) the most important quality measure for colonoscopy. There has been much interest in factors that can increase ADR. To date, however, few studies have looked at what intra-procedural endoscopist practices are associated with improving ADR. We conducted a retrospective review of colonoscopy videos to evaluate intra-procedural practices that could be associated with ADR.

Methods Videos were recorded of colonoscopies performed between September and December 2017 at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Colonoscopies for screening and surveillance were included for video review. Factors assessed included withdrawal time, intra-procedural cleaning, inspection technique, and other variables (colon distention, removal of equivocal/hyperplastic polyps). A series of multiple regression analyses was conducted on variables of interest before running a final model of significant predictors.

Results A total of 130 videos were reviewed from nine endoscopists whose ADRs ranged between 37.5 % and 73.7 %. The final regression model was significant (F = 15.35, df = 2, P = 0.0044), R2 = 0.8365) with close inspection of behind folds and quality of cecal inspection being the factors highly correlated with predicting ADR. Withdrawal and inspection times, colonic wall distention, removal of equivocal/hyperplastic polyps, quality of rectal inspection, suctioning, and washing were factors moderately correlated with predicting ADR.

Conclusions We found that behind-fold inspection and a meticulous cecal inspection technique were predictive of a high ADR.



Publication History

Received: 23 June 2020

Accepted: 19 October 2020

Article published online:
03 February 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M. et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e80-e86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ. et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-S28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T. et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1197-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR. et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Calderwood AH, Thompson KD, Schroy PC. et al. Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 691-699.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Adike A, Buras MR, Gurudu SR. et al. Is the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate?. Ann Gastroenterol 2018; 31: 217-223
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 604-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rastogi A, Bansal A, Rao DS. et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with cap-assisted colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2012; 61: 402-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gupta N. How to improve your adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 1054-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 May FP, Shaukat A. State of the science on quality indicators for colonoscopy and how to achieve them. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1183-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA. et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rex DK, Hewett DG, Raghavendra M. et al. The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2312-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR. et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sanchez W, Harewood GC, Petersen BT. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1941-1945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N. et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Saligram S, Rastogi A. Tools for polyp histology prediction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 261-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vinsard DG, Mori Y, Misawa M. et al. Quality assurance of computer-aided detection and diagnosis in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 55-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hanson JM, Atkin WS, Cunliffe WJ. et al. Rectal retroflexion: an essential part of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1706-1708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ball AJ, Johal SS, Riley SA. Position change during colonoscope withdrawal increases polyp and adenoma detection in the right but not in the left side of the colon: results of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 488-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Anderson JC, Kahi CJ, Sullivan A. et al. Comparing adenoma and polyp miss rates for total underwater colonoscopy versus standard CO. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 591-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Leung JW, Yen AW, Jia H. et al. A prospective RCT comparing combined chromoendoscopy with water exchange (CWE) vs water exchange (WE) vs air insufflation (AI) in adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 477-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C. et al. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C. et al. Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH. et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 El-Halabi MM, Rex DK, Saito A. et al. Defining adenoma detection rate benchmarks in average-risk male veterans. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 137-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar