Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 11, pp 3084–3090 | Cite as

Screening Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time Threshold for Adequate Proximal Serrated Polyp Detection Rate

  • Viral D. Patel
  • William K. Thompson
  • Brittany R. Lapin
  • Jay L. Goldstein
  • Eugene F. Yen
Original Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

For adequate adenoma detection rate (ADR), guidelines recommend a mean withdrawal time (MWT) of ≥ 6 min. ADR has been shown to correlate strongly with proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSP-DR), which is another suggested quality measure for screening colonoscopy. However, the impact of directly measured withdrawal time on PSP-DR has not been rigorously studied. We examined the relationship between MWT to ADR and PSP-DR, with the aim of identifying a functional threshold withdrawal time associated with both increased ADR and PSP-DR.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of endoscopy and pathology data from average-risk screening colonoscopy examinations performed at a large system with six endoscopy laboratories. A natural language processing tool was used to determine polyp location and histology. ADR and PSP-DR were calculated for each endoscopist. MWT was calculated from colonoscopy examinations in which no polyps were resected.

Results

In total, 31,558 colonoscopy examinations were performed, of which 10,196 were average-risk screening colonoscopy examinations with cecal intubation and adequate prep by 24 gastroenterologists. When assessing the statistical significance of increasing MWT by minute, the first significant time mark for PSP-DR was at 11 min at a rate of 14.2% (p = 0.01). There was a significant difference comparing aggregated MWT < 11 min compared to ≥ 11 min looking at the rates of adenomas [OR 1.65 (1.09–2.51)] and proximal serrated polyps [OR 1.81 (1.06–3.08)]. While ADR linearly correlated well with MWT (R = 0.76, p < 0.001), the linear relationship with PSP-DR was less robust (R = 0.42, p = 0.043).

Conclusion

In this large cohort of average-risk screening colonoscopy, a MWT of 11 min resulted in a statistically significant increase in both ADR and PSP-DR. Our data suggest that a longer withdrawal time may be required to meet both quality metrics.

Keywords

Withdrawal time Sessile serrated polyp Colorectal cancer screening Colonoscopy Endoscopic detection Polypectomy 

Notes

Author’s contribution

V. Patel: study design, clinical content expertise, manual validation of NLP methodology/chart review, writing of manuscript and revisions, and data and statistical analysis; W. Thompson: study design, software programming/NLP code development, manual validation of NLP methodology/chart review, writing of manuscript and revisions, and data and statistical analysis; B. Lapin: data and statistical analysis; J. Goldstein: study design, writing and editing of the manuscript and revisions, and interpretation of results; E. Yen: study design, clinical content expertise, writing and editing of the manuscript and revision, and interpretation of results.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:96–102.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.10.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper GS, Xu F, Barnholtz Sloan JS, Schluchter MD, Koroukian SM. Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2012;118:3044–3052.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, Singh H, Samadder NJ. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1375–1389.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:858–864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.06.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut. 2014;63:949–956.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel SG, Ahnen DJ. Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1315–1329; quiz 1314–1330.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S, et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1189–1195.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fayad NF, Kahi CJ. Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1973–1980.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.09.052.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahi CJ, Li X, Eckert GJ, Rex DK. High colonoscopic prevalence of proximal colon serrated polyps in average-risk men and women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:515–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–2541.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;149:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Snover DC, Ahnen DJ, Burt RW, Odze RD. Serrated polyps of the colon and rectum and serrated polyposis. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (eds) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2010:160–165.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:346–352.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2000.108480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:1155–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.03.044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL, Eckert GJ, Rex DK. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:42–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.09.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferrucci D, Lally A. UIMA: an architectural approach to unstructured information processing in the corporate research environment. Nat Lang Eng. 2004;10:327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bodenreider O. The unified medical language system (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:D267–D270.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh061.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Savova GK, Masanz JJ, Ogren PV, et al. Mayo clinical text analysis and knowledge extraction system (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:507–513.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.001560.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harkema H, Dowling JN, Thornblade T, Chapman WW. ConText: an algorithm for determining negation, experiencer, and temporal status from clinical reports. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:839–851.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.05.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TMF, et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:950–960.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2014.01.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shaukat A. Detection of serrated lesions: we are still in the teething stage. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liang J, Kalady MF, Appau K, Church J. Serrated polyp detection rate during screening colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1323–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03017.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, Bossuyt PM, et al. Differences in proximal serrated polyp detection among endoscopists are associated with variability in withdrawal time. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:617–623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel VD, Thompson WK, Anand V, Goldstein JL, Bianchi LK, Yen EF. 642 serrated lesion detection rate—an emerging marker of quality that varies with definition. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:S126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5085(15)30435-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the new hampshire colonoscopy registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2013.442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Goodrich M, Robinson CM, Weiss JE. Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the new hampshire colonoscopy registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1308–1312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veeral M, Oza JB, Seth A, Moore KP, Darwin L, Conwell PPS. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate correlates with adenoma detection rate and is impacted by mean withdrawal time: a retrospective study. J Gastrointest Dig Syst. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-069x.1000347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:1091–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2008.04.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gawron AJ, Thompson WK, Keswani RN, Rasmussen LV, Kho AN. Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1844–1849.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, Jacobson BC. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:376–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Humes KR, Jones NA, Ramirez RR. United States Bureau of the Census. Overview of race and Hispanic origin; 2010.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:33–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70383-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ussui V, Coe S, Rizk C, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viral D. Patel
    • 1
  • William K. Thompson
    • 2
  • Brittany R. Lapin
    • 2
  • Jay L. Goldstein
    • 1
  • Eugene F. Yen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologyUniversity of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Clinical Research InformaticsNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations