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

ARE QUALITY INDICATORS IMPORTANT IN COLONOSCOPIES? ANALYSIS OF 3,076 EXAMS IN A PRIVATE TERTIARY SERVICE IN SOUTHEASTERN BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

The carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer is well understood. Adenomas are the precursor lesions in about 70% of cases, highlighting the importance of screening programs.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of colonoscopy examinations performed in a private tertiary service by calculating the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and comparing these rates with literature data.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study evaluated colonoscopies performed at Hospital Centro Médico de Campinas between 2018 and 2020. It assessed the indications and complications of colonoscopy, sex, age group, bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, ADR, PDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR).

RESULTS

During the period, 3,686 colonoscopies were performed, and 3,076 were included in the analysis. The mean patient age was 57.2 years, and most patients were female (53.5%). Complications occurred in 39 colonoscopies (1.3%), with bleeding in six cases and perforation in one case. Tubular adenoma was the most prevalent histological subtype found in 20% of tests and in 62.7% of those with positive findings. The PDR was 23% and significantly increased with advancing age (p<0.01). The ADR was 20% and also significantly increased with age (p<0.001). This rate was higher in men (27%). The AADR was 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy is an effective polyp detection method, and the PDR was higher in men and significantly increased with age. The ADR and AADR were comparable to the literature data.

Current sessile serrated lesion incidence: implications for future clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Sessile serrated lesions (SSL) account for up to 30% of colorectal carcinoma pathogenesis. With multiple classification changes and improvements in colonoscopy equipment and technique, historical reporting may have underestimated the true incidence of SSLs. This study aimed to determine the incidence of SSLs in patients undergoing colonoscopic investigation in Canterbury, New Zealand over a 1-year period and describe their clinical and pathological characteristics.

METHODS

Electronic records were searched to identify all lower endoscopy procedures with polypectomy performed from 1 January 2022 to 1 December 2022 (inclusive). Patients' electronic records were used to collect histological classification, location and size of each polyp removed during their procedure. The primary outcome was the number of procedures that had one or more SSL, adenoma or hyperplastic polyp identified. Secondary outcomes included histological classification, location and size of each polyp removed.

RESULTS

There were 4346 procedures completed during the study period. Of these, 64.1% (2786) had a polypectomy and 18.6% (808) had at least one SSL excised. Individual polyp analysis was completed on 9166 polyps and found that 24.0% of polyps removed were SSLs and they were found predominately in the right colon (65.1% right colon, 32.6% left colon, 2.3% rectum). SSLs were typically <10 mm (84.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study found a higher incidence of SSLs compared to previous research. These results raise questions regarding whether SLL rates have been historically underestimated, whether SSL detection rate should be included as a key performance indicator and raises further concerns regarding the use of computed tomography colonography as a screening tool.

Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 (n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

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.