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

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

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 5 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
• 6 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-S28
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 15 Gupta N. How to improve your adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 1054-1057
• 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
• 17 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
• 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
• 19 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA. et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 26 Saligram S, Rastogi A. Tools for polyp histology prediction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015; 25: 261-286
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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