The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate

Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Traditional teaching has been to place patients in the left lateral decubitus starting position for colonoscopies. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared left lateral decubitus starting position to other approaches. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different starting positions for colonoscopies and their effect on cecal intubation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing at least two different starting positions for adults undergoing colonoscopy. The main outcome was cecal intubation time. Meta-analysis used an inverse variance random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Tool for RCTs 2.0.

RESULTS

After screening 1523 citations, 14 RCTs were included. Four studies compared left lateral decubitus to right lateral decubitus, four studies compared left lateral decubitus to left lateral tilt-down, three studies compared left lateral decubitus to prone, and three studies compared left lateral decubitus to supine. There were no statistically significant differences in cecal intubation time in seconds across all comparisons: left lateral decubitus vs. right lateral decubitus (MD 14.9, 95% CI - 111.8 to 141.6, p = 0.82, I2 = 85%); left lateral decubitus vs. left lateral tilt-down (MD - 31.3, 95% CI - 70.8 to 8.3, p = 0.12, I2 = 82%); left lateral decubitus vs. prone (MD 17.2, 95% CI - 174.9 to 209.4, p = 0.86, I2 = 94%); left lateral decubitus vs. supine (MD - 149.9, 95% CI - 443.6 to 143.9, p = 0.32, I2 = 89%).

CONCLUSION

The starting position for colonoscopies likely does not influence cecal intubation time. This study was limited by heterogeneity.

Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an imperative quality measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This retrospective observational study aimed to determine the trend of polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR in asymptomatic average- and high-risk participants in different age groups who underwent screening colonoscopy over the seven years from April 2012 to March 2019 in a tertiary gastroenterology referral center of Iran. Of 1676 participants, 51.8 % were men (mean age 52.3 years). The overall PDR and ADR were 22.7 %, and 13.5 %, respectively. Both Polyps and adenomas were more common in age groups 51-59 and ≥60 years in high-risk patients than in the corresponding groups of average-risk patients (p < 0.05). Also, both PDR and ADR were more frequent in men than in women among all studied age groups, but it was statistically significant only for the youngest age group (16.8 % versus 10.5 %, p < 0.05) for PDR and the oldest age group (19.7 % versus 13 %, p < 0.05) for ADR, respectively. The trend of total ADR was upward over 7 years in both average-risk (6.7 % to 13.3 %) and high-risk (9.8 % to 27 %) groups and across all age groups in both sexes. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that high-risk individuals had an elevated risk of adenoma compared with average-risk patients (OR: 1.6, p = 0.006). Substantial variation in thresholds of polyp and adenoma detection by age, sex, and risk categories emphasizes the need for a risk-adapted approach to CRC screening and prevention programs.

Key quality indicators in colonoscopy

Many quality indicators have been proposed for colonoscopy, but most colonoscopists and endoscopy groups focus on measuring the adenoma detection rate and the cecal intubation rate. Use of proper screening and surveillance intervals is another accepted key indicator but it is seldom evaluated in clinical practice. Bowel preparation efficacy and polyp resection skills are areas that are emerging as potential key or priority indicators. This review summarizes and provides an update on key performance indicators for colonoscopy quality.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

The conversion factor for predicting adenoma detection rate from polyp detection rate varies according to colonoscopy indication and patient sex

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the primary quality indicator for colonoscopies. The polyp detection rate (PDR) is available from administrative data and does not depend on histology verification. The correlation between PDR and ADR and the ADR/PDR conversion factor in preventive colonoscopies were evaluated. In the prospective study, asymptomatic individuals aged 45-75 years with preventive colonoscopy in 2012-2016 were included. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess PDR/ADR for each endoscopist. Conversion factor predicting ADR from PDR was obtained by linear regression and subsequently compared with adenoma to polyp detection rate quotient. One thousand six hundred fourteen preventive colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists in 8 screening colonoscopy centres in the Czech Republic were analysed. Correlation between PDR and ADR in all preventive colonoscopies was high and statistically significant (Rs 0.82; P < 0.001). There was a strong correlation between PDR and ADR in men (Rs 0.74; P = 0.002) and in screening colonoscopies (Rs 0.85; P < 0.001). The conversion factor to convert ADR from PDR was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies, 0.76 in FOBT+ colonoscopies and 0.67 in screening colonoscopies. ADR may be replaced by PDR in the assessment of colonoscopy quality. The value of the conversion factor varies according to colonoscopy indication and gender of examined individuals; in this Czech study, it was 0.72 in all preventive colonoscopies. The minimum requested ADR of 25 % corresponds to a PDR of 35 %, when converted with the appropriate conversion factor.

Correlation between ADR of screening and all colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy with polypectomy are associated with a reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as mortality, secondary to CRC. Because of the variation in physicians' performance and the risk of interval CRC after a colonoscopy, several quality indicators have been established. ADR (adenoma detection rate) is a generally accepted quality indicator. But it is also a target of possible gaming and achieving an adequate number of colonoscopies only from screening may be a problem for some practices. The aim of this study was to compare ADR for colonoscopies done for various indications and to look for correlations between the ADR of screening and all examinations.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the quality indicators of all colonoscopies performed in a nonuniversity hospital, Frydek-Mistek, from January 2013 to December 2017. We calculated the ADR for all colonoscopies in patients over 50 years of age (subdivided into screening, surveillance, diagnostic) and separately only for screening colonoscopies. Correlations were made using the Pearson's correlation coeficient.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 6925 patients over 50 years of age (3620 men, 3305 women, mean age 66.2 years). The ADRs for screening and surveillance were higher than for diagnostic colonoscopies for all of the endoscopists, and the ADRs for all colonoscopies were lower than for screening, but sufficiently over 25%. There was a positive correlation between the ADR of screening and all colonoscopies (r=0.906, P<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The calculation of ADR for all colonoscopies was possible in our endoscopic department, and there was a positive correlation with ADR for screening colonoscopies. ADR for all colonoscopies is a good tool for calculating real ADR from large sample sizes without gaming.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03730441).

Association Between Endoscopist Personality and Rate of Adenoma Detection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is significant variation among endoscopists in their adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We explored associations between ADR and characteristics of endoscopists, including personality traits and financial incentives.

METHODS

We collected electronic health record data from October 2013 through September 2015 and calculated ADRs for physicians from 4 health systems. ADRs were risk-adjusted for differences in patient populations. Physicians were surveyed to assess financial motivations, knowledge and perceptions about colonoscopy quality, and personality traits. Of 140 physicians sent the survey, 117 responded.

RESULTS

The median risk-adjusted ADR for all surveyed physicians was 29.3% (interquartile range, 24.1%-35.5%). We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or physicians' perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. ADR was associated with the degree of self-reported compulsiveness relative to peers: among endoscopists who described themselves as much more compulsive, the ADR was 33.1%; among those who described themselves as somewhat more compulsive, the ADR was 32.9%; among those who described themselves as about the same as others, the ADR was 26.4%; and among those who described themselves as somewhat less compulsive, the ADR was 27.3%) (P = .0019). ADR was also associated with perceived thoroughness (much more thorough than peers, ADR = 31.5%; somewhat more, 31.9%; same/somewhat less, 27.1%; P = .0173). Physicians who reported feeling rushed, having difficulty pacing themselves, or having difficulty in accomplishing goals had higher ADRs. A secondary analysis found the same associations between personality and adenomas per colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant association between ADR and financial incentives, malpractice concerns, or perceptions of ADR as a quality metric. However, ADRs were higher among physicians who described themselves as more compulsive or thorough, and among those who reported feeling rushed or having difficulty accomplishing goals.

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could have an impact on perceived trainee outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated for 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions.

RESULTS

Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies) and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) (P < .001) and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE, 94%; ASGE, 96%; P < .001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% for the crude ASGE definition to 18.6% for the unassisted ESGE definition (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIR calculation methods vary among guidelines and research studies; this has an impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.

Smoking and Other Risk Factors in Individuals With Synchronous Conventional High-Risk Adenomas and Clinically Significant Serrated Polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Serrated polyps (SPs) and conventional high-risk adenomas (HRAs) derive from two distinct biological pathways but can also occur synchronously. Adults with synchronous SPs and adenomas have been shown to be a high-risk group and may have a unique risk factor profile that differs from adults with conventional HRAs alone. We used the population-based New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to examine the risk profile of individuals with synchronous conventional HRAs and SPs.

METHODS

Our study population included 20,281 first time screening colonoscopies from asymptomatic NHCR participants 40 years or older between 2004-15. Exams were categorized by findings: (1) normal, (2) HRA only (adenomas ≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia, multiple adenomas ( > 2) and adenocarcinoma), (3) clinically significant SP (CSSP) only (any hyperplastic polyp ≥ 1 cm, sessile serrated adenomas/polyps or traditional serrated adenomas), and (4) synchronous HRA + CSSP. Risk factors examined included exposure of interest, smoking (never, past, and current/pack years), as well as age, sex, alcohol, education, and family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). Multivariable unconditional logistic regression tested the relation of risk factors with having synchronous HRA + CSSP versus having a normal exam or HRA alone.

RESULTS

Among NHCR participants with 18,354 screening colonoscopies (with complete smoking, sex, bowel preparation data, and adequate preparation) there were 16,495 normal; 1309 HRA alone; 461 CSSP alone, and 89 synchronous HRA + CSSP. Current smoking was associated with an almost threefold increased risk for HRA or CSSP, and an eightfold risk for synchronous HRA + CSSP (aOR = 8.66; 95% CI: 4.73-15.86) compared to normal exams. Adults with synchronous HRA + CSSP were threefold more likely to be current smokers than those with HRA alone (aOR = 3.27; 95% CI:1.74-6.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that current smokers may be at a higher risk for synchronous CSSP + HRA even when compared to having HRA alone.

ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru

Background and study aims  High-quality colonoscopy is fundamental for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key colonoscopy quality measure. The aim of this study was to establish the screening colonoscopy ADR of a tertiary referral center in Peru, identify the relationship between the ADR and patient age, sex and the colonoscopist, and determine the endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of the lesions found. Patients and methods  A retrospective observational longitudinal study was undertaken between January 2016 and June 2017. Results  Eight colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 620 patients scoring ≥ 6 points on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); cecal intubation was complete in 595 patients (cecal intubation rate [CIR] 95.9 %). The overall ADR was 29.7 % (females 25.4 %, males 33.1 %, P  = 0.040, 95 %Cl). The ADR colonoscopist range was 25.0 % to 34.4 %. The highest ADR (41.2 %, P  = 0.013, 95 %Cl) was for patients aged 65 to 75 years. Adenoma colon locations were: left 49 %, transverse 21.6 % and right 29.4 %. Adenoma dysplasia grades: low 98 %, high 2 %. Sixty-three percent of the lesions were 5 mm to 10 mm. Resections performed: 78.5 % cold biopsy forceps (CBF), 3.4 % cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and 18.1 % endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Conclusions  The ADR established was in line with the joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and related to patient age and gender but not to the colonoscopist. Colonoscopists should ensure rigorous application of the colonoscopy quality actions. ADR should be evaluated frequently.

Serum vitamin D levels correlate with the presence and histological grading of colorectal adenomas in peri and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Vitamin D is known to modulate immune function and proliferation. Higher vitamin D [25(OH)D₃] serum levels have been reported to have protective effects on adenoma detection and colorectal cancer (CRC) development and survival.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 315 peri and post-menopausal women submitted to opportunistic colorectal and osteoporosis screening at the gynaecology outpatient clinic of a tertiary medical centre between 2004 and 2015. Colonoscopy findings were correlated with 25(OH)D₃ and PTH serum levels, and subsequently adjusted in a multivariate logistic regression model. Confounding factors included demographic and colorectal risk factors, pharmacological therapies and bone densitometry metrics.

RESULTS

A total of 77 lesions were identified in 66 patients. Vitamin D insufficiency (<30 ng/mL) and deficiency (<20 ng/mL) were identified in 79.4% and 35.2% of patients, respectively. In univariate analysis, lower levels of 25(OH)D₃ were associated with polyp, adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. After adjusting for confounders, an association with polyps could not be observed, but a trend towards a negative correlation with adenoma detection was found (adjusted OR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.00; p = 0.083). Regarding advanced adenoma detection, 25(OH)D₃ (adjusted OR: 0.86; 95% CI 0.77-0.97; p = 0.013) proved to be an independent predictive factor. No association was found between 25(OH)D₃ levels and lesion detection site.

CONCLUSION

The association of 25(OH)D₃ serum levels with colorectal lesions seems to be restricted to adenomatous lesions and is influenced by histological grading. Vitamin D may be a valuable biomarker for optimization of risk stratification in group-specific CRC screening protocols.

Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample

BACKGROUND

There is concern that mental and physical fatigue among endoscopists over the course of the day will lead to lower adenoma detection rate (ADR). There are mixed findings in the prior literature on whether such an association exists.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to measure the association between the number of colonoscopies performed in a day and ADR and withdrawal time.

METHODS

We analyzed 86,624 colonoscopy and associated pathology reports between October 2013 and September 2015 from 131 physicians at two medical centers. A previously validated natural language processing program was used to abstract relevant data. We identified the order of colonoscopies performed in the physicians' schedule and calculated the ADR and withdrawal time for each colonoscopy position.

RESULTS

The ADR for our overall sample was 29.9 (CI 29.6-30.2). The ADR for colonoscopies performed at the 9th + position was significantly lower than those at the 1st-4th or 5th-8th position, 27.2 (CI 25.8-28.6) versus 29.9 (CI 29.5-30.3), 30.2 (CI 29.6-30.9), respectively. Withdrawal time steadily decreased by colonoscopy position going from 11.6 (CI 11.4-11.9) min for the 1st colonoscopy to 9.6 (8.9-10.3) min for the 9th colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, ADR and withdrawal time decrease by roughly 7 and 20%, respectively, by the end of the day. Our results imply that rather than mental or physical fatigue, lower ADR at the end of the day might be driven by endoscopists rushing.

Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients who receive a colonoscopy from a physician with a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are at higher risk of subsequent colorectal cancer. It is unclear what drives the variation across physicians in ADR. We describe physician characteristics associated with higher ADR.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study a natural language processing system was used to analyze all outpatient colonoscopy examinations and their associated pathology reports from October 2013 to September 2015 for adults age 40 years and older across physicians from 4 diverse health systems. Physician performance on ADR was risk adjusted for differences in patient population and procedure indication. Our sample included 201 physicians performing at least 30 colonoscopy examinations during the study period, totaling 104,618 colonoscopy examinations.

RESULTS

The mean ADR was 33.2% (range, 6.3%-58.7%). Higher ADR was seen among female physicians (4.2 percentage points higher than men, P = .020), gastroenterologists (9.4 percentage points higher than nongastroenterologists, P < .001), and physicians with ≤9 years since their residency completion (6.0 percentage points higher than physicians who have had 27-51 years of practice, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists, female physicians, and more recently trained physicians had higher performance in adenoma detection.

Predictors of post-colonoscopy emergency department use

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of colonoscopy were recently proposed as a quality measure. It is unknown whether patient, procedure, or endoscopist characteristics predict post-colonoscopy emergency department (ED) visits. Our aim was to determine the incidence and relatedness of ED visits within 7 days of colonoscopy and to identify predictors of post-colonoscopy ED use.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center, cohort study, we evaluated outpatient colonoscopies performed at a tertiary academic medical center or affiliated facility between January 2008 and September 2013. We determined the incidence of ED visits within 7 days of colonoscopy and the relatedness of the ED visit to the procedure. We assessed for independent factors associated with ED use within 7 days using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We reviewed 50,319 colonoscopies performed on 44,082 individuals (47% male, median age 59 years) by 40 endoscopists. There were 382 (0.76%) ED visits after colonoscopy, of which 68% were related to the procedure. On multivariate analysis, recent ED visit (odds ratio [OR], 16.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.83-21.48; P < .001), EMR (OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.82-7.79; P < .001), number of medication classes (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.26; P < .001), endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .029), and white race (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = .028) were identified as independent variables associated with ED visits after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased patient complexity, higher endoscopist ADR, and EMR were associated with increased ED use after colonoscopy. Patients at high risk for an unplanned hospital visit within 7 days should be targeted for quality improvement efforts to reduce adverse events and cost.

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and novel quality indicators for screening colonoscopy. A proposal for quality measures tool kit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most validated quality indicator for colonoscopy. Calculating ADR may not yield information in regards to advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced ADR). In addition, calculating ADR for individual endoscopists cannot distinguish between those who find only one versus more than one adenoma per colonoscopy. Several novel quality indictors were recently proposed to ensure adequate assessment of quality during colonoscopy. Our study aims to determine the correlation between ADR and novel quality indicators.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in a university hospital setting. Patient characteristics and colonoscopy findings were combined and analyzed to calculate the correlation of ADR with novel quality indicators using Spearman's rank-order correlation were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1433 patients out of 2116 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant positive correlation between ADR correlated with [advanced-ADR-2, nonadvanced-ADR, adenoma per colonoscopy, Multiplicity detection rate and ADR-Plus] r = (0.82, 0.99, 0.99, 0.07 and 0.85), respectively. However, ADR did not correlate with advanced-ADR and adenomas per positive participant.

CONCLUSION

Adding advanced-ADR and adenomas per positive participant to ADR may create a more comprehensive quality indicators tool kit, which is sensitive and difficult to game. Future studies are needed to investigate the impact of the tool kit on the interval cancers and adenoma missing rate.

Development and validation of a prediction model for adenoma detection during screening and surveillance colonoscopy with comparison to actual adenoma detection rates

OBJECTIVE

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies widely between physicians, possibly due to patient population differences, hampering direct ADR comparison. We developed and validated a prediction model for adenoma detection in an effort to determine if physicians' ADRs should be adjusted for patient-related factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Screening and surveillance colonoscopy data from the cross-sectional multicenter cluster-randomized Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program-3 (EQUIP-3) study (NCT02325635) was used. The dataset was split into two cohorts based on center. A prediction model for detection of ≥1 adenoma was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequently internally (bootstrap resampling) and geographically validated. We compared predicted to observed ADRs.

RESULTS

The derivation (5 centers, 35 physicians, overall-ADR: 36%) and validation (4 centers, 31 physicians, overall-ADR: 40%) cohort included respectively 9934 and 10034 patients (both cohorts: 48% male, median age 60 years). Independent predictors for detection of ≥1 adenoma were: age (optimism-corrected odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95%-confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.03), male sex (OR: 1.73; 95%-CI: 1.60-1.88), body mass index (OR: 1.02; 95%-CI: 1.01-1.03), American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class (OR class II vs. I: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.17-1.43, OR class ≥III vs. I: 1.57; 95%-CI: 1.32-1.86), surveillance versus screening (OR: 1.39; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.53), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 1.13; 95%-CI: 1.00-1.27). The model's discriminative ability was modest (C-statistic in the derivation: 0.63 and validation cohort: 0.60). The observed ADR was considerably lower than predicted for 12/66 (18.2%) physicians and 2/9 (22.2%) centers, and considerably higher than predicted for 18/66 (27.3%) physicians and 4/9 (44.4%) centers.

CONCLUSION

The substantial variation in ADRs could only partially be explained by patient-related factors. These data suggest that ADR variation could likely also be due to other factors, e.g. physician or technical issues.

Adenoma Detection Rates for Screening Colonoscopies in Smokers and Obese Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

GOAL

To examine screening adenoma detection rates (ADR) and serrated detection rates (SDR) among smokers and obese adults in the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND

ADR, a quality measure for screening colonoscopies, is associated with protection from interval colorectal cancer. Currently, only sex-specific ADR benchmarks are reported. However, obesity and smoking ≥20 pack-years are strong predictors for colorectal neoplasia, as highlighted by the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC Screening Guidelines. Data comparing ADR in smokers and obese adults to those without these risks are limited.

STUDY

We calculated ADR, SDR, and 95% confidence intervals for screening colonoscopies in participants ≥50 years. Sex-specific and sex-age-specific rates were compared by smoking exposure (never vs. <20 vs. ≥20 pack-years) and body mass index (<30 vs. ≥30).

RESULTS

A total of 21,539 screening colonoscopies were performed by 77 endoscopists at 20 facilities (April 2009 to September 2013). The difference in ADR between nonsmokers and smokers with ≥20 pack-years was 8.8% (P<0.0001) and between obesity groups 5.0% (P<0.0001). Significant sex-specific and sex-age-specific increases in ADR and SDR were found among smokers and obese participants.

CONCLUSIONS

ADR and SDR for smokers and obese adults were significantly higher than their counterparts without those risks. Endoscopists should consider the prevalence of these risks within their screening population when comparing their rates to established benchmarks. Calculating sex-specific or sex-age-specific ADR and SDR based on smoking and obesity may provide optimal protection for populations with a particularly high prevalence of smokers and obese adults.

Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test

OBJECTIVES

Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients.

METHODS

In this historical cohort study, we included 15,329 patients aged 50-74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta-regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients.

RESULTS

At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of an endoscopist's ADR or APC to determine if they fall below a given benchmark.

CONCLUSIONS

We have proposed methods of defining benchmarks for ADR and APC in FIT+ patients that go beyond the current "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended in average risk patients. These new thresholds represent results obtained by all peers and by a group of expert adenoma detectors defined in an independent patient cohort (average risk). Because the true adenoma burden in FIT+ patients could vary based on factors such as the threshold used to define a positive FIT, screening programs or endoscopy units may need to calculate their own benchmarks using local data.

Impact of endoscopy nurse involvement on polyp detection rates during colonoscopy

AIM: To investigate the impact of endoscopy nurse involvement during colonoscopy on the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective study. Patients involved were prospectively randomized to a routine colonoscopy group or an endoscopy nurse involvement group. The association of nurse involvement with PDR and ADR was evaluated.

RESULTS: A total of 1192 patients were included in the study. The PDR was significantly higher (33.19% vs 27.81%, P = 0.000) among colonoscopies that included an endoscopy nurse compared with those performed by only a physician, as was the left-sided and the right-sided adenomas detected (P = 0.017). There was no difference in ADR between the two groups (20.88% vs 20.55%, P = 0.889). Nurse participation was associated with a higher detection rate of small (< 5 mm) polyps (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION: Endoscopy nurse involvement in colonoscopies significantly improves the overall PDR. Involvement of a well-trained nurse in screening colonoscopies may be an effective strategy to increase access.