Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator set at a minimum of 25% in unselected populations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Nevertheless, a lack of pooled observational data resembling real-world practice limits support for this threshold. We aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled rates for conventional adenoma detection, polyp detection (PDR), cecal intubation, bowel preparation, and complications in population-based studies.

Methods The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until May 2023 for populational-based studies reporting overall ADR in unselected individuals. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

Results 31 studies were included, comprising 3 644 561 subjects. A high quality of procedures was noticeable, with a high cecal intubation rate and low complication rate. The overall pooled ADR, PDR, and rate of cancer detection were 26.5% (95%CI 23.3% to 29.7%), 38.3% (95%CI 32.5% to 44.1%), and 2.7% (95%CI 1.5% to 3.9%), respectively. ADR varied according to indication: screening 33.3% (95%CI 24.5% to 42.2%), surveillance 42.9% (95%CI 36.9% to 49.0%), and diagnostic 24.7% (95%CI 19.5% to 29.9%), with subgroup analysis revealing rates of 34.4% (95%CI 22.0% to 40.5%) for post-fecal occult blood test and 26.6% (95%CI 22.6% to 30.5%) for primary colonoscopy screening. Diminutive conventional adenomas yielded a pooled rate of 59.9% (95%CI 43.4% to 76.3%). The pooled rate for overall serrated lesion detection was 12.4% (95%CI 8.8% to 16.0%). Male sex and higher age were significantly associated with an ADR above the benchmark.

Conclusion This first meta-analysis relying on real-world observational studies supports the ESGE benchmark for ADR, while suggesting that different benchmarks might be used according to indication, sex, and age.

Publication History

Received: 15 January 2024

Accepted after revision: 04 July 2024

Article published online:
03 September 2024

• References

• 1 Xi Y, Zhang J, Zhang W. et al. Global colorectal cancer burden in 2020 and projections to 2040. Transl Oncol 2021; 14: 101-174
• 2 Wolf MD, Fontham E, Church T. et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 250-281
• 3 Rutter MD, East J, Rees C. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69: 201-223 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319858. (PMID: 31776230)
• 4 Wijnands A, Mahmoud R, Lutgens M. et al. Surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia and cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: Current practice and future perspectives. Eur J Intern Med 2021; 93: 35-41 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.08.010. (PMID: 34481721)
• 5 Monahan KJ, Bradshwaw N, Dolwani S. et al. Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/ United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG). Gut 2020; 69: 411-444
• 6 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. (PMID: 25480100)
• 7 Kaminski ML, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397 DOI: 10.1177/2050640617700014. (PMID: 28507745)
• 8 Mohan B, Khan SR, Daugherty E. et al. Pooled rates of adenoma detection by colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk individuals with positive fecal immunochemical test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 216-223.e1
• 9 Hassan C, Piovani D, Spadaccini M. et al. Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 212-225 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.009. (PMID: 36243103)
• 10 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086. (PMID: 24693890)
• 11 Marko N, Weil R. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research. Value Health 2010; 13: 989-997 DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00786.x. (PMID: 21138497)
• 12 Trotter JP. Patient registries: a new gold standard for “real world” research. Ochsner J 2022; 4: 211-214 (PMID: 22826660)
• 13 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2021; 10: 89 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. (PMID: 33782057)
• 14 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Accessed July 23, 2024 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/PDF/v6.4
• 15 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 493-499 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.023. (PMID: 23211748)
• 16 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012 DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. (PMID: 10789670)
• 17 Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 2019. Accessed July 23, 2024 at: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
• 18 Huang J, Chan PSF, Pang TWY. et al. Rate of detection of serrated lesions at colonoscopy in an average risk population: a meta-analysis of 129001 individuals. Endosc Int Open 2021; 09: E472-E481
• 19 Afify S, Tag-Adeen M, Abdelfattah A. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy in Egypt: A prospective multicenter study. Arab J Gastroenterol 2022; 23: 253-258
• 20 Mangas-Sanjuan C, Santana E, Cubiella J. et al. Variation in colonoscopy performance measures according to procedure indication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1216-1223 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.035. (PMID: 31446179)
• 21 Belderbos TDG, Overholt B, Mansmann U. et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 703-709
• 22 Coriat R, Lecler A, Lamarque D. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units. PLoS One 2012; 7: e339-e357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033957. (PMID: 22509267)
• 23 Overholt BF, Brooks-Beilli L, Grace M. et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: 260-266
• 24 Parra-Pérez VF, Yamamoto JW, Nago-Nago A. et al. Correlation between proximal serrated polyp detection and clinically significant serrated polyps: inter-endoscopist variability. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2021; 86: 348-355
• 25 Pantone S, Hassan C, Maselli R. et al. Multiple, zonal, and multi-zone adenoma detection rates according to quality of cleansing during colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 778-783
• 26 dos Santos C, Malaman D, Monkemuller K. et al. Prevalence of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms in southern Brazil. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 361-367 DOI: 10.1111/den.12346. (PMID: 25115615)
• 27 Bouwens Mariëlle WE, van Herwaarden YJ, Winkens B. et al. Endoscopic characterization of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps with and without dysplasia. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 225-235
• 28 Rondagh EJ, Masclee AAM, van der Valk M. et al. Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms: Gender differences in prevalence and malignant potential. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 80-88 DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2011.638395. (PMID: 22149943)
• 29 Rondagh EJ, Masclee AAM, Winkens B. et al. Endoscopic red flags for detection of high-risk serrated polyps: an observational study. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1052-1058 DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256770. (PMID: 21971921)
• 30 Forsberg A, Kjellstrom L, Agréus L. et al. Prevalence of colonic neoplasia and advanced lesions in the normal population: a prospective population-based colonoscopy study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 184-190 DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2011.647062. (PMID: 22229966)
• 31 Gromski M, Miller CA, Lee SH. et al. Trainees’ adenoma detection rate is higher if ≥10 minutes is spent on withdrawal during colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1337-1342
• 32 Morini S, Hassan C, Zullo A. et al. Detection of colonic polyps according to insertion/withdrawal phases of colonoscopy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24: 527-530 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-009-0633-2. (PMID: 19194715)
• 33 Chan MY, Cohen H, Spiegel BMR. Fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as day progresses at a Veteran’s Administration Teaching Hospital. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 11: 1217-1223 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.013. (PMID: 19631284)
• 34 Park DI, Kim YH, Kim HS. et al. Diagnostic yield of advanced colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy, according to indications: an investigation from the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID). Endoscopy 2006; 38: 449-455
• 35 Denis B, Weiss MA, Peter A. et al. Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: an audit of 500 colonoscopies procedures. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2004; 28: 1245-1255
• 36 Sonnenberg A, Turner KO, Genta RM. Trends of colonic neoplasia in US outpatient endoscopy centers. Dig Dis Sci 2022; 67: 4702-4707 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-021-07358-8. (PMID: 35048223)
• 37 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM. Impact of fair bowel prep on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry using a standardized preparation quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 463-470
• 38 Hernandez L, Deas TM, Catalano MF. et al. Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy quality indicators: a report from the Gastroenterology Practice Management Group. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 835-411
• 39 Mansmann U, CrispinAHenschel V. et al. Epidemiology and quality control of 245 000 outpatient colonoscopies. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105: 434-440 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0434. (PMID: 19626186)
• 40 Watson MM, Watson DC, Maddern GJ. et al. Quality of rural colonoscopy outperforms key performance indicators in a multi-centre prospective clinical study. ANZ J Surg 2023; 93: 528-533 DOI: 10.1111/ans.18072. (PMID: 36225114)
• 41 Cavicchi M, Tharsis G, Burtin P. et al. Difference in physician and patientdependent factors contributing to adenoma detection rate and serrated polyp detection rate. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 3579-3588 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05808-y. (PMID: 31471862)
• 42 Nalankilli K, Than Huynh X, Lade S. et al. Increasing rates of SSA/P detection in large open-access Australiana colonoscopy cohort. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E310-E316
• 43 Al-Najami F, Rancinger CP, Larsen MK. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy stratified by indications. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017; 2017: 4910143 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4910143. (PMID: 28819357)
• 44 Occhipinti P, Saettone S, Cristina S. et al. Correlation between adenoma and serrated lesion detection rates in an unselected outpatient population. Dig Liver Dis 2015; 47: 508-511
• 45 Khumbari V, Behary J, Hui JM. Prevalence of adenomas and sessile serrated adenomas in Chinese compared with Caucasians. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 608-612
• 46 Plummer JM, Mitchell DI, Ferron-Boothe D. et al. Colonoscopy in central Jamaica: results and implications. West Indian Med J 2012; 61: 610-614 (PMID: 23441356)
• 47 Bhangu A, Bowley DM, Horner R. et al. Volume and accreditation, but not specialty, affect quality standards in colonoscopy. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 1436-1444 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8866. (PMID: 22961527)
• 48 Millan M, Gross P, Manilich E. et al. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1217-1220 DOI: 10.1007/s10350-008-9315-3. (PMID: 18500502)
• 49 Arora A, Singh P. Colonoscopy in patients 80 years of age and older is safe, with high success rate and diagnostic yield. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 457-461
• 50 Hassan C, Repici A, Rex DK. et al. Fitting ADR to colonoscopy indication. United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 149-152 DOI: 10.1177/2050640616667171. (PMID: 28344785)
• 51 van Roon AH, Goede SL, van Ballegooijen M. et al. Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut 2013; 62: 409-415 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301583. (PMID: 22387523)
• 52 Wong JCT, Chiu HM, Kim HS. et al. Adenoma detection rates in colonoscopies for positive fecal immunochemical tests versus direct screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 607-613.e1
• 53 Zorzi M, Antonelli G, Amidei CB. Adenoma detection rate and colorectal cancer risk in fecal immunochemical test screening programs: an observational cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176: 303-310
• 54 Pu LZCT, Sing G, Rana K. et al. Polyp detection rate as a surrogate for adenoma and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rates. Gastrointest Tumors 2020; 7: 74-82
• 55 Anderson M, Butterly LF, Weiss JE. et al. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1188-1194 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.020. (PMID: 28153571)