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

Abstract

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.

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 2 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC. et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
• 3 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 81: 31-53
• 4 Corley D, Jensen CH, Marks A. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 5 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 6 Kim SE, Paik HY, Yoon H at al. Sex- and gender-specific disparities in colorectal cancer risk. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 5167-5175
• 7 Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE. et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1288-1295
• 8 Floer M, Meister T. Endoscopic improvement of the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy – where do we stand in 2015?. Digestion 2016; 93: 202-213
• 9 Jover R. (Coordinador). Guía de Práctica Clínica de Calidad en la Colonoscopia de Cribado de Cáncer Colorrectal. 1. ed. Alicante: Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva: 2011
• 10 Rivero-Sánchez L, Pellisé M. Preparación para colonoscopia. ¿Algún avance significativo en el horizonte?. Gastroenterolog Hepatolog 2015; 38: 287-300
• 11 Anderson J, Butterfly L. Colonoscopy: Quality Indicators. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 2015; 6: e77
• 12 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
• 13 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tándem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 775-781
• 14 East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S. et al. A comparative study of standard vs high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 28: 768-776
• 15 DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF. et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-550
• 16 Cardoso D, Botacin M, Mekdessi M. Adenoma Detection Rate Evaluation and Quality of Colonoscopy in the Center-West Region of Brazil. Arq. Gastroenterol 2017; 47
• 17 Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P. et al. Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1137-1142
• 18 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D. et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
• 19 Abdul-Baki H, Schoen RE, Dean K. et al. Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 676-682
• 20 Marcondes FO, Dean KM, Schoen RE. et al. The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician’s adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 668-675
• 21 Olivera K. Estudio Observacional de Detección y Características de adenomas colorrectales en el Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen [Trabajo de Investigación]. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; 2015
• 22 Barreda C, Vila S, Salazar F. et al. Adenomas Avanzados en 3,700 Colonoscopias. Rev Gastroenterol Perú 2010; 30-2: 113-120
• 23 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Goodrich M. et al. Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated lesions in screening vs surveillance colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1308-1312
• 24 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
• 25 Valori RM, Damery S, Gavin DR. et al. A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI). Endoscopy 01/2018; 50: 40-51
• 26 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions. Esophagus, stomach, and colon. November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
• 27 Van Doorn S, Hazewinkel Y, East JE. et al. Polyp Morphology: An Interobserver Evaluation for the Paris Classification Among International Experts. Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication 21.10.2014; DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.326.
• 28 Azzoni C, Bottarelli L, Campanini N. et al. Distinct molecular patterns based on proximal and distal sporadic colorectal cancer: arguments for different mechanisms in the tumorigenesis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 115-126
• 29 Mishra G. Clinical Review: How to recognize subtle lesions in the colon. ASGE Leading Edge 2015; 5: 1-13
• 30 Abdeljawad K, Vemulapalli K, Kahi CH. et al. Sessile serrated polyp prevalence determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate and an experienced pathologist. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 517-524
• 31 East JE, Atkin W, Bateman A. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut 2017; 0: 1-16
• 32 Kim JS, Lee B-I, Choi H. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747
• 33 Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P. et al. Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: ¿are we adhering to the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898-902
• 34 O’Connor S, Brooklyn T, Dunckley P. et al. High complete resection rate for pre-lift and cold biopsy of diminutive colorectal polyps. Endosc Int Open 2018; 06: E173-E178