Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(06): E775-E782
DOI: 10.1055/a-1136-9971
Original article

Expert endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates frequently detect diminutive adenomas in proximal colon

Osamu Toyoshima
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokoyo, Japan
,
Toshihiro Nishizawa
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, International University of Health and Welfare, Mita Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shuntaro Yoshida
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokoyo, Japan
,
Kazuma Sekiba
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokoyo, Japan
,
Yosuke Kataoka
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
4   Department of Gastroenterology, Sanraku Hospital, Chiyoda-ku, Japan
,
Keisuke Hata
1   Gastroenterology, Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic, Tokyo, Japan
5   Department of Surgical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Japan
,
Hidenobu Watanabe
6   Pathology and Cytology Laboratory Japan, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yosuke Tsuji
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokoyo, Japan
,
Kazuhiko Koike
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokoyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator in colonoscopy, and improved ADR decreases the incidence of colorectal cancer. We investigated differences in polyp detection according to the endoscopist’s ADR.

Patients and methods We performed a propensity-score matching study using baseline patient characteristics of age, sex, body mass index, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, indication for colonoscopy, bowel preparation, and colonoscope type. We compared polyp detection and colonoscopy procedures between patients who underwent colonoscopy by high-ADR endoscopists (high ADR group) and by low-ADR endoscopists (low ADR group).

Results We matched 334 patients in the high ADR group with 334 in the low ADR group. The ADR was 44.0 % and 26.9 % for the high-ADR and low-ADR endoscopists, respectively. Proximal, nonprotruding, and diminutive adenomas were more frequently detected by high-ADR endoscopists than by low-ADR endoscopists (all P < 0.001); similarly, more high-risk adenomas were detected by high-ADR endoscopists (P = 0.028). Furthermore, more sessile serrated polyps detected by high-ADR endoscopists (P = 0.041). High-ADR endoscopists more frequently performed pancolonic chromoendoscopy (P < 0.001).

Conclusions Expert detectors often found nonprotruding and diminutive adenomas in the proximal colon along with increased detection rate of high-risk adenomas. Low-ADR endoscopists need to recognize the features of missed adenomas to improve their ADRs.



Publication History

Received: 30 December 2019

Accepted: 02 March 2020

Article published online:
25 May 2020

© 2020. Owner and Copyright ©

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I. et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019; 144: 1941-1953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR. et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 250-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I. et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1301-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Toyoshima O, Yoshida S, Nishizawa T. et al. CF290 for pancolonic chromoendoscopy improved sessile serrated polyp detection and procedure time: a propensity score-matching study. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E987-E993
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-578
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kashida H. Endoscopic diagnosis of sessile serrated polyp: A systematic review. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 16-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH. et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Fourth edition. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee TJ, Rees CJ, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a national colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 203-211
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N. et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ou G, Kim E, Lakzadeh P. et al. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of prescribed patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal on adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ. et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sastre LozanoVM, Moran SanchezS, Garcia SolanoJ. et al. Relationship between the polyp detection rate and the post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2019; 111: 598-602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gurudu SR, Boroff ES, Crowell MD. et al. Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rates: Outcomes of quality improvement program. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 33: 645-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Leung WK, Lo OS, Liu KS. et al. Detection of colorectal adenoma by narrow band imaging (HQ190) vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 855-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gerard DP, Foster DB, Raiser MW. et al. Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the chicago bowel preparation scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013; 4: e43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Toyoshima O, Hata K, Yoshida S. et al. New-generation chromoendoscopy may increase confidence in the DISCARD2 study. Gut 2018; 67: 1742-1743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Weiss JE. et al. Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1188-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hata K, Shinozaki M, Toyoshima O. et al. Impact of family history of gastric cancer on colorectal neoplasias in young Japanese. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15: 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 D'Agostino Jr RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265-2281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E. et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 387-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011; 10: 150-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z. et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1213-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z. et al. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Leggett B, Whitehall V. Role of the serrated pathway in colorectal cancer pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 2088-2100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Arain MA, Sawhney M, Sheikh S. et al. CIMP status of interval colon cancers: another piece to the puzzle. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1189-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sawhney MS, Farrar WD, Gudiseva S. et al. Microsatellite instability in interval colon cancers. Gastroenterology 2006; 131: 1700-1705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rondagh EJ, Bouwens MW, Riedl RG. et al. Endoscopic appearance of proximal colorectal neoplasms and potential implications for colonoscopy in cancer prevention. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1218-1225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Greenspan M, Rajan KB, Baig A. et al. Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1286-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hilsden RJ, Rose SM, Dube C. et al. Defining and applying locally relevant benchmarks for the adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 1315-1321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kastenberg D, Bertiger G, Brogadir S. Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 2833-2843
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar