Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates

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.

Detection of sessile serrated adenoma using artificial intelligence-enhanced endoscopy: an Asian perspective

BACKGROUND

As the serrated pathway has gained prominence as an alternative colorectal carcinogenesis pathway, sessile serrated adenomas or polyps (SSA/P) have been highlighted as lesions to rule out during colonoscopy. These lesions are however morphologically difficult to detect on endoscopy and can be mistaken for hyperplastic polyps due to similar endoscopic features. With the underlying nature of rapid progression and malignant transformation, interval cancer is a likely consequence of undetected or overlooked SSA/P. Real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy via the computer-assisted detection system (CADe) is an increasingly useful tool in improving adenoma detection rate by providing a second eye during the procedure. In this article, we describe a guide through a video to illustrate the detection of SSA/P during AI-assisted colonoscopy.

METHODS

Consultant-grade endoscopists utilized real-time AI-assisted colonoscopy device, as part of a larger prospective study, to detect suspicious lesions which were later histopathologically confirmed to be SSA/P.

RESULTS

All lesions were picked up by the CADe where a real-time green box highlighted suspicious polyps to the clinician. Three SSA/P of varying morphology are described with reference to classical SSA/P features and with comparison to the features of the hyperplastic polyp found in our study. All three SSA/P observed are in keeping with the JNET Classification (Type 1).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, CADe is a most useful aid to clinicians during endoscopy in the detection of SSA/P but must be complemented with factors such as good endoscopy skill and bowel prep for effective detection, and biopsy coupled with subsequent accurate histological diagnosis.

Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Background

The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.

Results

A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Real-time, computer-aided, detection-assisted colonoscopy eliminates differences in adenoma detection rate between trainee and experienced endoscopists

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs). Patients and methods  We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed. Results  ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference ( P  > 0.05) between the two categories of operators. Conclusions  In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

Disparate age and sex distribution of sessile serrated lesions and conventional adenomas in an outpatient colonoscopy population-implications for colorectal cancer screening?

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly diagnosed in individuals aged < 50 years, resulting in advocacy of screening from age 45 years. Despite existing knowledge associating CRC with conventional adenomas, the significance of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) on the burden of CRC is less detailed. We aimed to provide contemporary estimates for SSL prevalence and examine patient and procedure factors associated with SSL detection.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study examining associations between SSL and conventional adenoma detection, polyp histopathology, patient, and procedure characteristics in an outpatient colonoscopy unit over 12 months.

RESULTS

From 2097 colonoscopies, SSL detection was 13.8% overall and 12.5% in patients < 50 years. SSLs were mostly proximal in location (64%), and SSL detection was significantly higher in females compared with males (16.2% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.003), particularly in those < 50 years (16.8% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, SSL detection was associated with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.91), synchronous conventional adenoma detection (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.78) and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.77). Conventional adenoma detection was 33.6% and associated with age ≥ 50 years (aOR 3.57, 95% CI 2.84-4.47) and synchronous SSL detection (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.79).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed age and sex disparities in polyp types and prevalence in this outpatient colonoscopy population. SSLs were most prevalent in females aged < 50 years, suggesting a potential increased susceptibility of young females to SSLs and CRC. Our findings may have implications for the design of CRC screening programs.

Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy, CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study

Background/Aims

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) does not reflect the complete detection of every adenoma during colonoscopy; thus, many surrogate indicators have been suggested. This study investigated whether the ADR and surrogate quality indicators reflect the adenoma miss rate (AMR) when performing qualified colonoscopy.

Methods

We performed a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of asymptomatic examinees aged 50 to 75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by eight endoscopists. The ADR and surrogate quality indicators, including polyp detection rate, total number of adenomas per colonoscopy, additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and total number of adenomas per positive participant, were calculated for the prediction of AMR.

Results

A total of 371 back-to-back colonoscopies were performed. There was a significant difference in ADRs (range, 44% to 75.4%; p=0.024), polyp detection rates (range, 56% to 86.9%; p=0.008) and adenomas per positive participants (range, 1.19 to 2.30; p=0.038), and a tendency of a difference in adenomas per colonoscopy (range, 0.62 to 1.31; p=0.051) and ADR-Plus (range, 0.13 to 0.70; p=0.054) among the endoscopists. The overall AMR was 20.1%, and AMRs were not different (range, 13.9 to 28.6; p>0.05) among the endoscopists. No quality indicators were significantly correlated with AMR. The number of adenomas found during the first colonoscopy was an independent factor for increased AMR (odds ratio, 1.79; p<0.001).

Conclusions

The colonoscopy quality indicators were significantly different among high-ADR endoscopists, and none of the quality indicators reflected the AMR of good quality colonoscopy performances. The only factor influencing AMR was the number of adenomas detected during colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

The audit process may help improve performance indicators for colonoscopy quality but it is unclear whether this is sustained over several years.

METHODS

44138 procedures for 28 endoscopists from 2004 to 2019 were analysed for polyp detection rate and withdrawal time. From 2012, 14 endoscopists were analysed with additional data on polyp histology and number of polyps removed.

RESULTS

Polyp detection increased from 40.7% in 2004 to 62.2% in 2019; removal of polyps>1 cm remained constant (11%). Adenoma detection rate was 25.8% in 2012 and 28.3% in 2019. Sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection rate increased from 4.5% to 14.7%; most of the increase was in the first 2 years of the histology part of the audit. There was a significant correlation of adenoma detection rate with mean number of adenomas (r=0.72, p=0.004) and a significant correlation of SSP detection with mean number of SSPs (r=0.85, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The audit process appears to encourage a higher rate of polyp detection. This was due to increased detection of smaller polyps and increased detection of SSPs.