Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(01): E107-E116
DOI: 10.1055/a-1990-0509
Original article

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates continue to increase: 2008–2020

Nicholas Edwardson
1   University of New Mexico, School of Public Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Prajakta Adsul
2   University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
3   University of New Mexico, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Zorisadday Gonzalez
2   University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
V. Shane Pankratz
2   University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
3   University of New Mexico, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Gulshan Parasher
2   University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
4   University of New Mexico, Department of Gastroenterology, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Kevin English
5   Albuquerque Area Indian Health Board Inc., Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Shiraz Mishra
3   University of New Mexico, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
6   University of New Mexico, Department of Pediatrics, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
› Author AffiliationsThis work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, grants R01CA192967 (Mishra, PI) and 3P30CA118100-16S4 (Tomkinson PI, Mishra, PD), and the Biostatistics Shared Resource of the University of New Mexico Comprehensive cancer Center, USA
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Could the sessile serrated lesion detection rate become an ESGE quality parameter?Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(01): E105-E106
DOI: 10.1055/a-2007-1644

Abstract

Background and study aims We assessed sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) at a large academic medical center from 2008 to 2020 and modeled a local, aspirational target SSLDR. We also assessed SSLDRs among all gastroenterology fellows to better understand the relationship between SSLDRs and total colonoscopies performed.

Patients and methods SSL-positive pathology results were flagged from a dataset composed of all screening colonoscopies for average-risk patients from 2008 to 2020. Unadjusted SSLDRs were calculated for individual endoscopists by year. A mixed effects logistic regression was used to estimate the log odds of SSL detection, with one model estimating division-wide predictors of SSL detection and a second model focused exclusively on colonoscopies performed by fellows. Model-adjusted SSLDRs were estimated for all 13 years and across both categories of all endoscopists and fellows only.

Results Adjusted SSLDRs showed a consistent improvement in SSLDR from a low of 0.37 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.63) in 2008 to a high of 7.94 % (95 % CI: 6.34–9.54) in 2020. Among fellows only, the odds of SSL detection were significantly lower during their first year compared to their second year (OR: 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.66–0.98) but not significantly higher in their third year compared to their second year (OR: 1.09, 95 % CI: 0.85–1.4).

Conclusions SSLDR increased steadily and significantly throughout our study period but variance among endoscopists persists. The peak SSLDR from 2020 of 7.94 % should serve as the local aspirational target for this division’s attendings and fellows but should be continuously reevaluated.



Publication History

Received: 13 July 2022

Accepted after revision: 17 November 2022

Article published online:
26 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Comment to this article:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2023; 55(04): 399-399
DOI: 10.1055/a-2009-1949

 

  • References

  • 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE. et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clinicians 2021; 71: 7-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program – Cancer Stat Facts: Colorectal Cancer. In: Surveillance E, and End Results Program ed. 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA. et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 458-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kahi CJ. Screening relevance of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Endosc 2019; 52: 235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim SY, Kim TI. Serrated neoplasia pathway as an alternative route of colorectal cancer carcinogenesis. Intest Res 2018; 16: 358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Karnes WE, Johnson DA, Berzin TM. et al. A polyp worth removing: a paradigm for measuring colonoscopy quality and performance of novel technologies for polyp detection. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 55: 733-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shapiro JA, Bobo JK, Church TR. et al. A comparison of fecal immunochemical and high-sensitivity guaiac tests for colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 1728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chang L-C, Shun C-T, Hsu W-F. et al. Fecal immunochemical test detects sessile serrated adenomas and polyps with a low level of sensitivity. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 872-879.e871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Anderson JC, Robertson DJ. Serrated polyp detection by the fecal immunochemical test: an imperfect FIT. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 880-882
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, Lubner MG. et al. Serrated polyps at CT colonography: prevalence and characteristics of the serrated polyp spectrum. Radiology 2016; 280: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Desai M, Anderson JC, Kaminski M. et al. Sessile serrated lesion detection rates during average risk screening colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E610-E620
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rameshshanker R, Purchiaroni F, Ana W. et al. PTH-039 Prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps in distal colon during screening colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy: a single bowel cancer screening experience from uk. Gut 2017; 66: A225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e71
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Torlakovic E, Skovlund E, Snover DC. et al. Morphologic reappraisal of serrated colorectal polyps. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 65-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bettington M, Walker N, Clouston A. et al. The serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma: current concepts and challenges. Histopathology 2013; 62: 367-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Abdeljawad K, Vemulapalli KC, Kahi CJ. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kanth P, Boylan KE, Bronner MP. et al. Molecular biomarkers of sessile serrated adenoma/polyps. Clin Translat Gastroenterol 2019; 10: e00104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hetzel JT, Huang CS, Coukos JA. et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2656-2664
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL. et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42-46
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Huang J, Chan PS, Pang TW. et al. Rate of detection of serrated lesions at colonoscopy in an average-risk population: a meta-analysis of 129,001 individuals. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E472-E481
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Sessile serrated lesions: Searching for the true prevalence. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E635-E636
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ross WA, Thirumurthi S, Lynch PM. et al. Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: Time to revise quality standards?. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 567-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 IJspeert J, Nolthenius CT, Kuipers E. et al. CT-colonography vs. colonoscopy for detection of high-risk sessile serrated polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 516-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Shaukat A, Gravely AA, Kim AS. et al. Rates of detection of adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, and advanced adenoma are stable over time and modifiable. Gastroenterol 2019; 156: 816-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Buda A, De Bona M, Dotti I. et al. Prevalence of different subtypes of serrated polyps and risk of synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk population undergoing first-time colonoscopy. Clin Translat Gastroenterol 2012; 3: e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Aziz M, Fatima R, Lee-Smith W. et al. Comparing endoscopic interventions to improve serrated adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 32: 1284-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Qayed E, Vora R, Levy S. et al. Colonoscopy procedural volume increases adenoma and polyp detection rates in gastroenterologytrainees. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 9: 540-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pace D, Borgaonkar M, Lougheed M. et al. Effect of colonoscopy volume on quality indicators. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2016 2580894.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Zwink N, Stock C, Birkner B. et al. Screening colonoscopy volume and detection of colorectal neoplasms: a state-wide study from Bavaria, Germany. Europ J Cancer Prev 2017; 26: 181-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Peters SL, Hasan AG, Jacobson NB. et al. Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 439-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rogart JN, Siddiqui UD, Jamidar PA. et al. Fellow involvement may increase adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2841-2846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aziz M, Mehta TI, Weissman S. et al. Do water-aided techniques improve serrated polyp detection rate during colonoscopy? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 55: 520-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar