Original articleClinical endoscopyVariation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy
Section snippets
Study design
We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of summary-level data from endoscopists performing screening colonoscopy for the Lilly Colorectal Cancer Prevention Program, which is a corporate-based program of colonoscopic screening established in 1995 by Eli Lilly and Company for its employees, retirees, and their dependents. Specific details about the program were previously described.13, 14, 15 All procedures were performed on average-risk asymptomatic adults, aged 50 years or older,
Results
From September 1995 through June 2001, 2925 persons underwent first-time screening colonoscopy by 46 endoscopists as part of the colorectal cancer prevention program. We excluded 21 endoscopists who performed fewer than 40 screening colonoscopies for the program during this time interval, along with their 261 patients, which resulted in a study sample size of 25 endoscopists and 2664 persons (1556 men and 1108 women) performing and undergoing screening colonoscopy, respectively.
The overall mean
Discussion
Herein, we describe variation in PDRs and adenoma detection rates among endoscopists performing screening colonoscopy. For any adenoma, detection rates varied from 7% to 44%, a greater than 6-fold difference. For large polyps, PDRs ranged from 0% to 13%, a result that was not statistically significant (P = .07). There were no endoscopists with detection rates lower than 1.5 times the interquartile range, because a box-plot analysis identified only 1 to 3 high outliers per polyp category.
In
References (38)
- et al.
How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey on endoscopic capacity
Gastroenterology
(2004) - et al.
Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence
Gastroenterology
(2003) - et al.
Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy
Gastroenterology
(2004) - et al.
Variation in adenoma detection rates and colonoscopic withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
Prospective analysis of withdrawal times and PDRs during screening colonoscopy and a comparison to US Multi-Society Task Force recommendations: a community-based continuous quality improvement study
Gastrointest Endosc
(2006) Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates
Gastrointest Endosc
(2000)- et al.
Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Am J Gastroenterol
(2002) - et al.
Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2001) - et al.
A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2003)
Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide in patients undergoing colonoscopy with patient-controlled sedation
Gastrointest Endosc
A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
Prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in smokers
Am J Gastroenterol
Use of colonoscopy as a primary screening test for colorectal cancer in average risk people
Am J Gastroenterol
A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk
Am J Gastroenterol
Natural history of untreated colonic polyps
Gastroenterology
Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Differences in detection rates of colorectal polyps and adenomas among endoscopists in population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening
Gastrointest Endosc
Variability in flexible sigmoidoscopy performance among examiners in a screening trial
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Cited by (118)
Quality indicators for colonoscopy in Egypt: A prospective multicenter study
2022, Arab Journal of GastroenterologyCitation Excerpt :ADR is another priority indicator for screening colonoscopy in asymptomatic, average-risk individuals, and the rationale behind the creation of this term was to minimize the variation among colonoscopists in the detection of adenomas [27–31]. The recommended targets for ADR based on screening colonoscopy studies are 25 % and 15 % in male and female patients, respectively, aged ≥ 50 years undergoing screening colonoscopy [26–31]. Despite the lack of CRC national screening programs, we proposed the ADR as a quality indicator that appeared relatively lower in our results (15 %) than that previously reported in international figures (15 %–25 %).
Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement
2020, Gastrointestinal EndoscopyThe Case for High-Quality Colonoscopy Remaining a Premier Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategy in the United States
2020, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North AmericaComputer-aided polyp detection based on image enhancement and saliency-based selection
2020, Biomedical Signal Processing and ControlVideo-Based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate With Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement
2019, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
DISCLOSURE: All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Grant support: NIH grant K24 DK 002756.
See CME section; p. 1350.