Endoscopy 2025; 57(S 02): S571
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806494
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2025
ePosters

In a context of high detectors, is it necessary to monitor the detection rate of serrated lesions as a quality parameter in colonoscopy?

Authors

  • M Bustamante-Balén

    1   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, València, Spain
    2   Instituto de Investigación Sani, València, Spain

  • E Coello

    1   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, València, Spain

  • C Soutullo-Castiñeiras

    3   Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Valencia, Spain

  • V Lorenzo-Zúñiga

    4   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital / IISLaFe, València, Spain

  • N Alonso-Lázaro

    1   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, València, Spain

  • C Satorres

    1   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, València, Spain

  • M Garcia-Campos

    5   Hospital Universitari i, Valencia, Spain

  • L Argüello

    1   La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, València, Spain

  • V Pons-Beltrán

    3   Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Valencia, Spain
Further Information
Also available at
 

Aims Serrated lesion detection indicators have been proposed for inclusion in quality guidelines. However, there is no consensus on their usefulness or appropriate values as cut-off points. We aimed to assess whether, in the context of high-detecting endoscopists, the collection of quality indicators of serrated lesion detection allows differentiation between endoscopists with different performances.

Methods Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of CRC screening colonoscopies performed between January 2017 and January 2024 at a single center. Only endoscopists with≥100 examinations were included. Sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) and combined serrated lesion detection rate (CSLDR=SSL+proximal hyperplastic polyp+hyperplastic polyp≥10mm+proximal serrated lesion+serrated lesion≥10mm+traditional serrated adenomas) were chosen as serrated lesion detection indicators. Endoscopists were divided into ‘Best’ (SSLDR and CSLDR>mean) and ‘Worst’ (SSLDR CSLDR<mean) groups. Both groups were compared for all other indicators [Lesion detection rate (LDR), Adenoma detection rate (ADR), ADR-plus, Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and withdrawal time≥6 min (WT6) or≥10 min (WT10)].

Results Nine endoscopists were evaluated (ADR≥55%). The mean SSLDR was 5% and the mean CSLDR was 15%. Five endoscopists were considered "Better" and 4 endoscopists "Worse". The comparison for each indicator between both groups of endoscopists was as follows: LDR 75.5% vs 66.7% (p=0.08); ADR 67.1% vs 59.2% (p=0.08); AADR 17.4% vs 18.1% (p=1); ADR-plus 4.8 vs 3.2 (p=0.01); CSLDR-plus 2.6 vs 2.1 (p=0.32); CIR 91.5% vs 90.6% (p=0.08); WT6 77.5% vs 64.8% (p=0.32); WT10 36.7% vs 11.7% (p=0.02)

Conclusions Endoscopists with above-average SSLDR and CSLDR values detect, on average, more adenomas (higher TDA-plus) and have longer withdrawal times (WT10). In a higher detector background, ADR is not enough to detect the best performers, and the use of indicators for sessile lesions detection may be necessary. An SSLDR≥5% and a CSLDR≥15% could be cut-off points.



Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2025

© 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany