Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 1141–1148 | Cite as

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

  • Brent Murchie
  • Kanwarpreet Tandon
  • Shamiq Zackria
  • Steven D. Wexner
  • Colin O’Rourke
  • Fernando J. Castro
Article

Abstract

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.

Methods

In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.

Results

2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77–1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64–1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69–1.33).

Conclusions

Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.

Keywords

Colorectal adenoma Polyp detection rate Adenoma detection rate 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Brent Murchie, Kanwarpreet Tandon, Shamiq Zackria, Steven D. Wexner, Colin O’Rourke and Fernando J. Castro has no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A (2014) Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64:9–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypec- tomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366:687–696CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baxter NN et al (2009) Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 150(1):1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ransohoff DF (2009) How much does colonoscopy reduce colon cancer mortality? Ann Intern Med 150(1):50–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al (2004) Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 141:352–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonog- raphy compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colo- rectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rex DK et al (2014) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 81(1):31–53Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen SC, Rex DK (2007) Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 102(4):856–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al (2010) Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 362:1795–1803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rex DK et al (2002) Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 97(6):1296–1308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahi CJ et al (2013) Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 77(6):925–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keswani RN et al (2015) Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 110(8):1134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ussui V et al (2015) Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol 110(4):489–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sawhney MS et al (2008) Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥ 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 135(6):1892–1898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaukat A et al (2009) Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(12):1335–1340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Francis DL et al (2011) Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 73(3):493–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boroff ES et al (2013) Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 108(6):993–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elhanafi Sherif et al (2014) Estimation of the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate by using a conversion factor in a predominantly Hispanic population. J Clin Gastroenterol 49(7):589–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G (2000) A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 52:346–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rostom A, Jolicoeur E (2004) Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 59:482–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al (2009) American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol 104:739–750 [corrected] CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carpenter B et al (2016) Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J Stat Softw 20:1–37Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thoma MN et al (2013) Comparison of adenoma detection rate in Hispanics and whites undergoing first screening colonoscopy: a retrospective chart review. Gastrointest Endosc 77(3):430–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent Murchie
    • 1
  • Kanwarpreet Tandon
    • 2
  • Shamiq Zackria
    • 3
  • Steven D. Wexner
    • 1
  • Colin O’Rourke
    • 4
  • Fernando J. Castro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases InstituteCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineBlake Medical CenterBradentonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineAultman HospitalCantonUSA
  4. 4.Quantitative Health SciencesCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations