Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy

Trends in Detection of Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesions Over a Decade in a Community-Based Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an accepted benchmark for screening colonoscopy. Factors driving ADR and its relationship with sessile serrated lesions detection rate (SSLDR) over time remain unclear. We aim to explore patient, physician, and procedural influences on ADR and SSLDR trends.

METHODS

Using a large healthcare system in northern California from January 2010 to December 2020, a total of 146,818 screening colonoscopies performed by 33 endoscopists were included. ADR and SSLDR were calculated over time using natural language processing. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odd ratios of patient demographics, physician attributes, and procedural details over time.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2020, ADR rose from 19.4% to 44.4%, whereas SSLDR increased from 1.6% to 11.6%. ADR increased by 2.7% per year (95% confidence interval 1.9%-3.4%), and SSLDR increased by 1.0% per year (95% confidence interval 0.8%-1.2%). Higher ADR was associated with older age, male sex, higher body mass index, current smoker, higher comorbidities, and high-risk colonoscopy. By contrast, SSLDR was associated with younger age, female sex, white race, and fewer comorbidities. Patient and procedure characteristics did not significantly change over time ( P -interaction >0.05). Longer years in practice and male physician were associated with lower ADR and SSLDR in 2010, but significantly attenuated over time ( P -interaction <0.05).

DISCUSSION

Both ADR and SSLDR have increased over time. Patient and procedure factors did not significantly change over time. Male endoscopist and longer years in practice had lower initial ADR and SSLDR, but significantly lessened over time.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR.

RESULTS

The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r = 0.44; P = .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.