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

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

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE. et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clinicians 2021; 71: 7-33
• 2 National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program – Cancer Stat Facts: Colorectal Cancer. In: Surveillance E, and End Results Program ed. 2021
• 3 Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA. et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 458-479
• 4 Kahi CJ. Screening relevance of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Endosc 2019; 52: 235
• 5 Kim SY, Kim TI. Serrated neoplasia pathway as an alternative route of colorectal cancer carcinogenesis. Intest Res 2018; 16: 358
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 9 Anderson JC, Robertson DJ. Serrated polyp detection by the fecal immunochemical test: an imperfect FIT. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 880-882
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 14 Torlakovic E, Skovlund E, Snover DC. et al. Morphologic reappraisal of serrated colorectal polyps. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 65-81
• 15 Bettington M, Walker N, Clouston A. et al. The serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma: current concepts and challenges. Histopathology 2013; 62: 367-386
• 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
• 17 Kanth P, Boylan KE, Bronner MP. et al. Molecular biomarkers of sessile serrated adenoma/polyps. Clin Translat Gastroenterol 2019; 10: e00104
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 21 Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Sessile serrated lesions: Searching for the true prevalence. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E635-E636
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 28 Pace D, Borgaonkar M, Lougheed M. et al. Effect of colonoscopy volume on quality indicators. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2016 2580894.
• 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
• 30 Peters SL, Hasan AG, Jacobson NB. et al. Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 439-442
• 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
• 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